It is not far-fetched to state unequivocally that, not all, but many of President Obama's critics, especially those who have been against him from the beginning no matter what he has done that has been good for America and for the world, are just petty racists.
On top of this, my Democratic Party has displayed incredible ineptitude in waging the war of information against the Republican Party's disinformation, misinformation, and counter-truths since the election of President Obama. No wonder the president's poll numbers are low in spite of him rescuing America from the abyss of economic collapse and achieving a success level that no other president has achieved before him in recent memory.
As the elections in America approach and the primaries' campaign heats up, the candidates, Republicans and Democrats seek for positions on issues and policies that would set them apart from their opponents, and, for Republicans, especially in light of the events taking place in the Middle East, and, now, in Paris with the latest attacks, the best campaign strategy is by portraying President Obama as "weak" and "not able to lead", etc.
Beside those journalists who show no respect for the president and the presidency under Barack Obama such as 60 Minutes' Steve Kroft who questioned the President as if he was questioning a criminal, the segment of the media that is biased keeps portraying the President's strategy in the Middle East, especially as dealing with ISIS, as a "failure."
Thus, for instance, during last Saturday, November 14, 2015's Democratic Debate, CBS's John Dickerson kept prodding the candidates, especially Hilary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, to criticize President Obama's "failed" policy against ISIS. The Democratic candidates, wisely, would not take the bait.
So, what is all this about "failure" of the President's policy against ISIS?
Most of us on continental America, surrounded by waters east and west, with Latin America on the South and Canada on the North, we are mentally and intellectually "isolated" from the developed real wide world.
PBS's "Newshour Weekend" of this Sunday, November 15, 2015, interviewed a British expert, Mr. Peter Neumann, Director of International Center for the Study of Radicalization, King's College, England, who gives us a small view of the complexities of the world today with his take on the aims of ISIS.
When asked by PBS's William Brangham whether the fight against ISIS could be "hastened"? ("rushed" or "hurried" for those who do not understand English), Mr. Neumann answered:
"I think it's very dangerous to try to hasten it too much. I think, contrary to what everyone says, the campaign that has been going on in Iraq and Syria has not been altogether unsuccessful... It has contained the Islamic State..."
And, while our American "experts" -- as if one becomes a judicious thinker or analyst just because one held some high position in an American defense of intelligence institution -- pompously declare that the attack in France is evidence that President Obama's policy has failed and that ISIS has not been contained, Mr. Neumann, beside stating that ISIS has, indeed, been "contained," gives three main reasons why ISIS attacked Paris:
1. Classical asymmetry warfare; 2. Polarize and divide; 3. Internal aim. In other words, it is in fact because ISIS has been "contained" that it decided to lash out and attack in Paris, which could have happened in Moscow, in Washington, DC, or in any other capital city of any country involved in trying to defeat ISIS.
Mr. Neumann, above, gives us an example of a thinker who understands the complexity of fighting entities like ISIS, a type of war that has evolved beyond antiquity warfare à la 2003 invasion of Iraq.
President Obama is the first U.S. President to understand that antiquity warfare, such as was fought in the U.S. Civil War which, in modern version with advanced weaponry, happened in European's World Wars or in American Invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, or in Vietnam, is obsolete. War, as the world confronts now against ISIS, is boundary-less, amorphous, and, as far as the Middle East is concerned, sectoral (i.e. Sunni v. Shiite, even though both are of Islam).
Senator John McCain, bless his soul, and those who think like him, are still thinking civil war type of warfare. President Francois Hollande has just declared that France is at War, yet, the French army couldn't line up its soldiers and tanks and bombers in the streets of Paris and go toe-to-toe with Muslim extremist warriors.
Thus, even while bombing the physical space ISIS has taken as its headquarters in Iraq and Syria, sending American soldiers there would be as futile and dangerous as President Ronald Reagan sending U.S. marines to Beirut. As President Obama just declared in Turkey,
"It is not just my view but the view of my closest military and civilian advisers that that would be a mistake (to send American ground troops to fight ISIS),... because we would see a repetition of what we've seen before, which is if you do not have local populations that are committed to inclusive governance and who are pushing back against ideological extremes, that they resurface, unless we're prepared to have a permanent occupation of these countries."
Unfortunately, for us in America, some of our narrow and localized views of world politics hinder us from digging deep and understanding world and sectarian conflicts such as those that have given rise to ISIS, i.e., Sunni Muslims versus Shiite Muslims and their extreme adherents, as well as our invasions and non-judicious disruptions of societies (i.e., Iraq), based on lies, which brought about and accentuated the division among these Muslims, resulting in more evil than good (i.e., in Iraq, prior to the American invasion, Christians lived side by side with Muslims, but, after the American invasion, thousands of Christians have been murdered or have had to flee, while the Sunni-Shiite divide has gone into the extreme giving birth to ISIS).
Finally, America, often times one can get Real Truth by watching the Late Night Show with Steven Colbert than from biased and/or ignorant news experts and analysts. Here is what Retired Colonel Jack H. Jacobs told host Steven Colbert on the difficulties of fighting ISIS and what might be needed.