In the words of Julius Caesar, who came, saw, and conquered, Obama came, saw, and ran away.

Many Syrians like myself are wary of the new Syria rising having learned from the Iranian Revolution that change could sometime be as bad, or much worse, than its replacement.

I recall how the Shah of Iran yielded to Khomeini and US pressure because he did not want to take part in massacring his own people (Iranians should be so grateful to the Shah after watching what Assad did to our people), Syrians have no such luck with Assad butchering tens of thousands.

In two successive days, Syrians fighting to oust Assad scored two major battle victories to consolidate further their grip on Northern Syria.

The first was to control the infamous al-Furat dam on the Euphrates, a symbol of an era when Soviet engineers helped their proxies showcase their powerful ties to an evil empire.

The second, even more important from a military strategic point of view, is capturing al-Jarrah military airfield in Aleppo Province that was used heavily to supply the air attacks Assad carried out indiscriminately against civilians and fighters alike.

Who captured both? Ahrar al-Sham Islamic Movement.

Whom do we thank” President Obama who came, saw, and ran away.

We also should be wary of how Obama”™s policy made Syria look like Iran 1979 with the exception that the Islamists have two enemies to settle their scores with represented by the Syrian minorities and the United States of America.

President Obama learned nothing from President Carter who let Iran drift away from the US orbit.

Carter had the US hostages as reason enough to intervene, but did not; Obama, on the other hand, has every reason to intervene on a humanitarian level and on the predicament that Syria will be far more dangerous to US interests in the hands of Islamic extremists, but chose to run away.

Carter could not stop the Iranian Islamic Revolution from gripping the country, but Obama allowed the Syrian Revolution, now turned Islamic, to controlling the country.

Carter lost Iran, but Obama never bothered to win Syria.

One came, saw, and could not.

The other came, saw, and ran away.

Share our content. It's unique and it's FREE.

6 Comments

  1. StigP in Sweden
    February 13, 2013 at 1:39 pm — Reply

    The Guardian Monday 8 October 2012 says
    “Mitt Romney will call for an escalation of the conflict in Syria by arming rebels with the heavy weapons needed to confront president Bashar al-Assad’s tanks, helicopters and fighter jets.”
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/08/mitt-romney-arm-syrian-rebels
    So it is fully clear that Romney wanted to arm the FSA and Syrian opposition. The problem wasn’t Romney, the problem was Obama’s voters who didn’t want to arm Syrian opposition. Right? And the world also missed a chance to get rid of Assad. Right?

    • February 13, 2013 at 1:45 pm — Reply

      The American people did not want US troops in Syria, but they would follow their leader on foreign policy if he chooses to. Obama, in his inauguration speech, concentrated his new agenda on gun control and climate change when the American people saw them as Less important than the economy or jobs. Did that persuade Obama to change his agenda? No, because he knows he is supposed to lead and not be led.

  2. StigP in Sweden
    February 13, 2013 at 8:17 am — Reply

    I have read this post several times. Used Google translation from english to swedish to get it clear for me.
    If I understand this right you have no big trust in how President Obama is handling the Syria crisis. So my question must be.. What would Mitt Romney have done? Would he support Syria opposition fully in all ways? Weapons, forces on the ground, whatever? And perhaps the most important, force Assad to step aside?

    Stig-Ã…ke Persson
    Sweden

    Ps..My english is not perfect, but I hope you understand what I mean.

    • February 13, 2013 at 10:30 am — Reply

      Any other President would have taken advantage of the fact that the early defectors in the Syrian Assad army were liberal-minded officers with no connection to Islamic extremism to provide them with logistics and materials to oust Assad. Instead, he turned his back on Syria, which resulted in a genocidal humanitarian crisis and in fundamentalism filling the void left by his lack of leadership.

      • StigP in Sweden
        February 13, 2013 at 1:05 pm — Reply

        Which “any other president”? I didn’t follow the 2012 elections in US that well, so I must ask. Did all the other candidates say that they should take the advantage of the defections? What was Mitt Romney opinion? After all it was between Obama and Romney it stood at the very end.

        • February 13, 2013 at 1:33 pm — Reply

          yes, Romney favored arming the Free Syrian Army.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

nineteen − 6 =

Previous post

The Shell Game of a Corner Street Magician

What if Jews Numbered 1.5bn and Muslims 15m?
Next post

What if Jews Numbered 1.5bn and Muslims 15m?