Why?

          In a recent post I accused the President of the United States of being a traitor.  Responses so far have been positive, but I expect to hear from some detractors who would likely argue that to be treasonous, acts that give aid and comfort to the enemy must be willful, and that Obama has not intentionally committed treason, in spite of the consequences of his failed policies. I maintain that he has. What else could explain the damage his decisions have inflicted on our national security and our standing in the world? Sheer incompetence is not enough.

          In his first term, President Obama made three major decisions affecting us and our allies in Europe. He scrapped the decision to place defensive missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic; he unilaterally reduced our nuclear arsenal, so that Russia now boasts of having a superior nuclear capability; and he reduced our land, sea and air military capabilities. Russia has taken advantage of this deliberate drawdown by invading Crimea and Eastern Ukraine with impunity. Obama’s response has been to rely on ineffective sanctions, while denying defensive armaments to Ukraine. Why?
          In the Middle East we have seen the President lead from behind in Libya, now controlled by Islamist fanatics; side in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood, an active supporter of terrorism; back off his Red Line in Syria; deny Iraq a residual force to protect against a resurgence of al Qaeda; damage our relationship with Israel; allow Iran to continue unimpeded in its quest for nuclear weapons; fail to develop an effective strategy to defeat ISIL in Iraq and Syria; refuse to acknowledge Islamic radicalism and its controlling ideology. Again, the question is: Why?
          Obama has given us enough clues. The first was candidate Obama’s promise to fundamentally change the nature of this country. The second was his apology tour to the Middle East. The third is his disdain for the military. The fourth is his sympathetic view of Islam. They go hand in hand in projecting the President’s view of the world and America’s place in it. They explain Obama’s embarrassment for American exceptionalism and his refusal to do anything that could be interpreted as the imposition of American values on the rest of the world. 
          How then to establish a new world order no longer dependent on American leadership? The answer in Europe is a defanged NATO. Obama will not defend Europe against Russian adventurism, because he is at heart a coward who does not like to fight. Instead, he is confident that in the end diplomacy will bring Russia into the fold of peaceful nations.
          In the Middle East the answer is a hegemonic Islam ruled by a nuclear-armed Iran. I think Obama, our Islamophile-in-Chief, believes that once a religiously reconciled and unified Islam is in complete control of the Middle East, it will somehow abandon its barbaric jihad, its thirst for conquest slaked once and for all.  Of course, Israel may have

to be sacrificed in the process, but that would be an acceptable price to pay for a lasting peace.

          Having played a primary role in achieving such a peace, Barack Obama’s place in history will be secure. He will have earned his Nobel Peace Prize.
          This is my considered opinion. And my nightmare.