Obama's missed opportunity with Pakistan and Somalia

Obama increased George Bush's wars from 4 to 7.

Never forget that the same year Obama withdrew from Iraq, in 2011, he funded operations against Syria and Libya in the Arab Spring. By 2012, he expanded the drone war to Yemen, then bombed Iraq in 2014 in the war on ISIS, while also expanding said war on ISIS into Syria that same year. Obama also went back into Libya to fight ISIS in 2016.

Rather than being the anti-war candidate, Obama proved himself to be the 'anti-American troops' candidate. Though he deserves credit in not overthrowing Bashar Al-Assad and in his war on ISIS in Iraq, he loses most of that credit by landing tax-payer money into the pockets of ISIS in Syria.

Obama could have been an anti-war candidate. Clearly he was not.

Had Obama not endorsed the Arab Spring, that could have meant that Obama did not get involved in Syria, Libya or Yemen. But there are still 2 other drone wars that were, in my mind, unnecessary.

Rather than pouring loads of cash into rebellions in Syria and Libya - which turned into jihadists and terrorists - he could have withdrawn from drone strikes in Pakistan and Somalia. Imagine that! Instead of Obama turning 4 wars into 7, he could've turned it into 1!

Had Obama withdrawn from Somalia, Pakistan and Iraq and focused head-over-heels on Afghanistan, resources could have been far better spent. Of course Somalia, Pakistan and Iraq would have ended up as terrorist safe-havens, but by the time Afghanistan was actually solved - which it could have been in this scenario - Obama would have been able to return to these 3 other countries to continue the mission!

The folly behind expanding the war on terror with not enough resources should be obvious. Obama expanded 11 trillion dollars of debt under Bush to 19 trillion dollars by the time he left. That is almost half the debt again!

Like Britain during the years it was alone in the fight against Nazi Germany, America under Obama should have known their priority: Afghanistan. They should have left Somalia, Pakistan and Iraq alone. The reasons for Iraq are obvious: American support for the war had completely evaporated. It was a contributing factor to Obama's election victory over John McCain. But what about Pakistan and Somalia?

Pakistan borders Afghanistan and is the main reason why Afghanistan is so unstable. As I have mentioned in other posts, had Obama spent billions of dollars on Afghan border security on the Afghani-Pakistani border, the Taliban threat to Afghanistan would have been greatly reduced. That would mean that the Taliban could have been obliterated from Afghanistan with the remnants regrouping in Pakistan. With Afghanistan stabilized, then Obama could have dealt with Pakistan.

As for Somalia, letting terrorism get worse there would have been a better idea than funding terrorism in Syria, Libya and Yemen, which happened under Obama. Obama endorsed the Arab Spring, which is how Syria, Libya and Yemen were able to be added to the list of countries bombed by America. America supported groups with links to Al-Qaeda and ISIS in all 3 countries, while also bombing those same forces he funded. It would have been fiscally far cheaper to come back to an Islamic State in Iraq and an Islamic State in Somalia - with Assad and Gidaffi still ruling in Syria and Libya - than the current scenario.

Was Osama Bin Laden's Death a victory in the war on terror?

Was Osama Bin Laden's Death a victory in the war on terror? It was.

However, this victory has been overshadowed by American policy during the Arab Spring. Had Obama abstained from intervention in Syria and Libya in particular, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi would have never been able to take the limelight from Al-Qaeda.

With the death of Bin Laden was a - much-missed - opportunity for terrorism to break down and no longer be the threat it once was. While Al-Qaeda broke down after the death of Bin Laden, terrorism did not decrease but increased under a new face, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS.

The truth is the death of Bin Laden meant that a new, more formidable head of the serpent was able to rise in its stead. And Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi is not only the next Bin Laden - he is worse than Bin Laden.

We have not yet felt the full effects of the establishment of ISIS' Caliphate. On one hand, ISIS are yet to do a 9-11-sized terror attack. But mark my words: after Mosul is liberated, we are approaching dangerously close to the day when ISIS will attack at a 9-11-sized scale.

On the other hand, we have not yet felt ISIS' explosive power in deconstructing the Arabian Peninsula. When that happens, one had better hope Iraq is stable, otherwise the ISIS madness will return to Iraq but stronger than ever.

When these effects are fully realised, Osama Bin Laden will be but a distant memory. Mark my words: America will wish it never endorsed the Arab Spring by the time these events have taken place.

To overcome these issues is enormous, but without overcoming ISIS and preparing for what is soon to be a brutal onslaught, the West will never win the war on terror.