- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Americans from across the political spectrum are scratching their heads trying to figure out what made Barack Obama break the law to trade hardened terrorist commandos with the blood of thousands on their hands for an Army deserter who denounced his country and likely defected to the Taliban cause.
Very few prominent Americans are enthusiastically supporting Obama’s decision. Many in his own party are critical. Even more are expressing shock and bewilderment.
Let me suggest a few possibilities for Obama’s motivation:
- One can’t help but note the timing of the decision to capitulate to the demands of the Taliban to return Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. The story has sucked all of the media oxygen out of perhaps the biggest scandal of the Obama administration – the complete breakdown of the Veterans Administration that resulted in death and suffering by untold numbers of America’s wounded warriors. Is it possible that part of the calculated political motivation underlying Obama’s decision was just that – getting the VA out of the nation’s headlines? At first glance, it seems counter-intuitive: Can you escape one scandal by creating another? The answer is, of course. It’s called the old “wag the dog” strategy. And one can’t argue with the results – at least so far. Few are talking about the shocking VA scandal that was beginning to make America wonder if a government that could so badly abuse men and women who sacrificed themselves for their country should be trusted to provide life-giving medical care for every man, woman and child in the U.S.
- For seven years, Obama has been insisting he wants to close down the Guantanamo Bay facility in which hardened captive terrorists are detained. By freeing five of the very worst offenders there, did he make the freeing of all of them more palatable? Is it a first step toward turning them all loose? Indeed, it turns out that Obama is now poised to release yet another terrorist from Gitmo.
- Does Obama identify with Bowe Bergdahl? Is Bergdahl his kind of guy? Is he much different, for instance, from the man Obama chose to be secretary of state – John Kerry? Remember, Kerry served in Vietnam. When he returned, he became a vicious critic of the U.S. military. Some of the messages Bergdahl wrote about his fellow soldiers sound uncannily like the claims Kerry made about U.S. soldiers in Vietnam.
Or is there something else – a motivation even darker?
Is there evidence suggesting Obama actually sympathizes, at some level, with the jihadist enemy? Could we, at least, safely conclude that he is more willing to negotiate with the Taliban than he is with Republicans in Congress? That’s the stark and seemingly undeniable conclusion of one member of Congress – Rep. Mark Meadows of North Carolina. Think about that! We have a president whose enemies are not mass murderers who enslave people, subjugate women and convert by the sword. His realenemies are those who disagree with him and oppose his policies at home.
There’s another possibility – one I have floated before.
Obama understands there is a back-door way to achieve his political objectives. Early in his administration, this “progressive” was exposed by me and other Obama critics. But, back then, it was limited to domestic policy. I believe Obama has introduced what we have come to know as the Cloward-Piven strategy to the world stage.
Essentially, at its most primitive core, the Cloward-Piven strategy is about creating enough chaos, usually economic, so there will be an excuse for the state to usher in a new order. I think that’s what Obama is doing around the world. How else can one comprehend the number of brush fires he has set – in the Middle East, in Eastern Europe, in Afghanistan, in Africa and elsewhere? Could it all be part of plan? Planned chaos? A more appropriate question is whether it could be unplanned. Could it all be the result of simple bungling?
I take Obama at his word when he said he wanted to “fundamentally transform America.” I think he’s doing just that. I think he’s succeeding. He is literally redefining right and wrong. He is both provoking anger and overwhelming his opposition with the sweeping nature of the moral chaos and confusion that is not just a byproduct of his policies – it is his actual goal.
Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.