Has Obama Administration geostrategy been based upon a cunning (and secret) plan? Richard Fernandez makes the case that a covert American attempt to subvert radical Islam crested with the September 11, 2012, Benghazi fiasco. Employing a mix of infiltration, drone assassination (to clear promotion paths), and calculated regime sacrifices (Egypt, Syria), the objective was to reforge an international Jihad under covert US control. When the take-over plan went south, nothing could be publicly admitted. Cascading failure has continued in the shadows ever since, jutting into media consciousness as a succession of disconnected — even inexplicable — foreign policy setbacks.

The curious thing about September 11, 2012 — the day of the Benghazhi attack — is that for some reason it marks the decline of the Obama presidency as clearly as a milepost. We are told by the papers that nothing much happened on that day. A riot in a far-away country. A few people killed. And yet … it may be coincidental, but from that day the administration’s foreign policy seemed inexplicably hexed. The Arab Spring ground to a halt. The secretary of State “resigned.” The CIA director was cast out in disgrace. Not long after, Obama had to withdraw his red line in Syria. Al-Qaeda, whose eulogy he had pronounced, appeared with disturbing force throughout Africa, South Asia and the Arabian Peninsula. Almost as if on cue, Russia made an unexpected return to the world stage, first in Syria, then in the Iranian nuclear negotiations.


Fernandez digs much deeper than Carney, but this is still worth adding.

May 14, 2014admin 12 Comments »

TAGGED WITH : , , , ,

12 Responses to this entry

  • Played | Reaction Times Says:

    […] By admin […]

    Posted on May 14th, 2014 at 10:12 am Reply | Quote
  • Handle Says:

    “In one devastating attack Obama — and Hillary — realized they had been double-crossed and their whole theory had been a dream. In an instant it was plain they could not control the jihad from the inside.”

    Here’s the problem with Fernandez’s tricky language. If you take him literally, it’s more interesting, but also nonsense. If you presume a charitable interpretation, then there’s nothing to see here, except for the absolutely routine attempt by Democratic administrations to hope that certain populist movements will ‘moderate’ and be taken over by rational people with whom we can deal diplomatically and who will, eventually, perhaps in the generation in which their western-indoctrinated, er, ‘educated’, descendants inherit the throne, converge to the modern, progressive way of thinking.

    So it’s not about ‘controlling the jihad from the inside’ – that’s nutty. It is about trying to nudge these populations away from a culture in which jihad is integral is not central to one’s identity, beliefs, and motivations. The typical naive idea being ‘give peace a chance’, and that if the USG just stops ‘provoking’ these folks, they’ll mellow and abandon their fanaticism and lay down their scimitars and eventually forget about all that retrograde craziness and enjoy Eurovision like the rest of us.


    admin Reply:

    You didn’t find the drone-assassination-plus-infiltration take-over model exactly insane enough to have persuaded some eager people?


    E.Antony Gray (RiverC) Reply:

    One may also underestimate the insanity of long-march Cultural Marxists who would believe they were ‘controlling the jihad’ when of course no such thing is possible via those means. To listen to their own rhetoric only says what they aspire to, not necessarily what they could ever even achieve. It may well be that the Benghazi incident represented the first major wakeup call to them that they were lying to themselves.

    This is the same criticism applied to the PRISM documents, which looked to represent more what some of the R&D within the NSA wished to achieve and modeled an implementation of, more than what they would actually be able to achieve without nationalizing large tech companies.

    I don’t doubt for a moment that the bluegov folks seriously dreamed of ‘taking over jihad from the inside’, since that is Cultural Marxism’s hammer. That it was never remotely feasible may only be clear to someone not enamored with its prowess.


    Posted on May 14th, 2014 at 11:25 am Reply | Quote
  • Peter A. Taylor Says:

    From the Belmont Club comments:

    M. Report: “To refuse to blame the American people for their mistakes is to admit that they cannot govern themselves.”

    drbatman: “Well, there are three main possibilities. Number one: incompetence and inexperience. Number two: misguided idealism that believes this course is truly for the good of our country. Number three: this was the agenda all along — to so fundamentally transform America that it would no longer be a Constitutional Republic at home or the world leader abroad.”

    “I vote for number three, perhaps not in every minor detail, for there is surely a high level of incompetence as well, but definitely as a strategic program being enacted all too successfully.”


    Posted on May 14th, 2014 at 12:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • sobl Says:

    This makes sense if you view the architects as out NatSec deep state and the timing of the killing of BinLaden as a necessary killing so we could use AlQaeda as a road team ground force for regime change. Plausible. After all, if a drone can spot a face from 1000s of feet high, you mean to tell me they could not ID the 6’5″ walker at a compound a few miles from Paki military academies?


    Posted on May 14th, 2014 at 7:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • Scharlach Says:

    We can all rest assured that even if this is false, the truths of covert international relations are beyond our fucking reckoning.


    Alrenous Reply:



    Posted on May 14th, 2014 at 8:15 pm Reply | Quote
  • Wilhelm von Überlieferung Says:

    Haven’t you all read this or watched this? The decision makers were steadfast in the belief that they could honestly topple Iraq in 6 months and have moved onto the next country on the list. A list you should all be familiar with in retrospect. When their original plan failed, they changed their strategy. Now that too has failed, so they went to the next step or two in the plan.


    Wilhelm von Überlieferung Reply:

    Must have not closed a quote. My apologies.


    admin Reply:



    Posted on May 15th, 2014 at 6:43 am Reply | Quote
  • Lesser Bull Says:

    Classification of information and plans is a statutory statement that democracy is unworkable.


    Posted on May 15th, 2014 at 7:51 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment