In transparent and objective consideration, there can be no doubt that the creation of ISIS, the destruction of Libya, the devastation of Syria, the destabilization of Ukraine, and the deterioration of the relationship with Russia owe to the atrocious foreign policy of the U.S. under the incumbent administration of Barack Obama. While some politicians and pundits seem to be wiser in hindsight and acknowledge the committed blunders, others remain stubborn and unconvinced. Of course, among the latter, Mr. Obama himself, who diverts from his dismal record on foreign affairs by focusing on subordinate problems like global warming and gun control.
During these disastrous policy decisions, in my blog entries of 2011 (Libya) and 2013 (Syria), I warned against supporting violent and extremist insurgent movements while letting down established heads of state and governing political administrations. Here is what I wrote in August of 2014 after ISIS appeared on the scene and introduced a new concept of radicalized warfare: "If further damage to global affairs ought to be prevented, a swift turnaround is needed to bring American (and Transatlantic, for that matter) foreign policy to its senses. Given Mr. Obama's stubbornness, hubris, and conceitedness, there is little hope things will get better in the two years he has left in office, unless his ignorance and ideological prejudice will be reined in by the Senate, by Congress, and by a significant majority of the American public."
This swift turnaround in American foreign policy did not occur; instead, the administration doubled down on its failed policies, heavily protected by the bulk of the mainstream media and supported by significant representatives of the Republican Party in both Senate and Congress. The ever more hardening and downright ridiculous stance of senators John McCain, Marco Rubio, and Lindsey Graham should disqualify them for serious foreign affairs business forever. In the place of substantial critique and the building up of public pressure on the Obama administration to reconsider their approach to world affairs, the pernicious propaganda against Syrian president Bashar al-Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin continued and intensified. In depicting Assad as a murderous tyrant and "New Hitler" of the Middle East, the Obama administration propagated regime change under the pretense that Assad had used weapons of mass destruction on his people. The media could only present questionable evidence that the Syrian people needed liberation from their oppressive government and president. Barely a critical word mentioned on the murderous and illegitimate conglomerate of insurgents, who even received financial and material support.
The Pax Americana the U.S. attempted to impose upon a large part of the world turned out to be an utter failure. But what to do about the chaos in the Middle East, large sections of Africa, the Caucasus, Russia relations, and China? The candidates lining up for the presidential elections do not raise much hope. Whoever watched the recent debates of Republican presidential candidates from an international security and foreign policy standpoint must have been terrified! Among the candidates, the only exception to the incumbent administration's hawkish policy against ISIS was Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who just suspended his campaign and dropped out of the race. The polls' leading candidates - Cruz, Rubio, and even Trump - all espouse a somewhat interventionist stance. With differences in detail, they seem to be willing to continue the past and present Obama policies.
Who and what could bring the United States to its senses? At long last, who will reject the pernicious post-Cold War foreign policy approach to shape international affairs and implement a global security order exclusively according to American principles and interests? And in the context of the ongoing race for the White House: Where is a president who is not a petty partisan politician, but rather a statesman, acknowledging the legitimate national interests of other global players and, above all, of his country's European allies?
If the U.S. is not able to steady itself from within, it will be on its way to become in reality what the headline formulated as a question. The result most likely being that more or less the entire world will eventually unite to bring down the imperialist Leviathan.
