After all that has been written and said about Obama and the Middle East crisis, the entire ordeal still mystifies me.
Middle East crisis: questions
I know all the questions:
- Was this planned?
- Was it spontaneous?
- Was it the result of an unknown video by an unknown videographer?
- Was it the result of our weak foreign policy?
- Were the security guards armed with live ammo?
- Did we have advanced notice?
And I’m sure I’ve missed a few. All good questions; all answers remain questionable.
Still, all the questions and all the answers didn’t resolve the uneasiness for me. Something seemed to be missing. What could possibly be Obama’s reasoning for any of it? Some believe that if it sparked a war, then Obama would win another term. Americans do not change horses in mid-stream, or so we heard when Franklin D. Roosevelt ran for a third term. But I can’t quite accept that reasoning. This crisis may actually make Obama look totally incompetent in foreign affairs. He couldn’t risk that. After all, he touts foreign affairs as being his strong suit.
An ideological imperative for Obama?
The Kimmeredge Oil Well, the oldest continuously productive oil well in Britain. Photo: Graham Horn (Geograph.UK); Creative COmmons Attribution/Share-alike 2.0 Generic LIcense
There is one line of reasoning that I can’t dismiss. It has to do with Barack’s disassociation of the whole matter. Yes, he gave us a relatively benign statement before getting back on the campaign trail. It seemed little more than an obligatory comment forced by his challenger who was speaking out. His disinterest is startling – almost as startling as his refusal to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu in the midst of a crisis. This also reminded me of another time he remained disinterested during a crisis – the Gulf oil spill. Of course that particular debacle suited his ideology of reducing our dependence on any oil – not necessarily just foreign oil.
Before I go into it, let me remind you that this Administration (and I believe that includes Mr. Obama) was more than willing to give Mexican drug lords assault weapons to win a brownie point or two on gun restriction. We all know that this botched strategy (known as Fast and Furious) resulted in the loss of lives of a few Americans but also countless Mexicans. The point here is that the Administration has proven by their actions that they couldn’t care less about the loss of human life if it advances their cause. Applying this realization to the Middle East crisis, it is entirely reasonable to assume that if the situation serves their purpose in some way that they would care less about the cost of lives.
So, if it is not logical to assume that there is a political benefit of some kind (if there is, it escapes me), we should look for an ideological benefit.
Incite riots in the Middle East to raise the price of oil?
Bear with me. If giving guns to drug lords to promote gun restrictions is acceptable to this Administration, then mob riots in the Middle East to promote some ideology may also be acceptable. Now: what ideology benefits from mob riots in the Middle East? As strange as it may seem, there may be an answer. Mob riots in the Middle East affect oil prices by possibly reducing our oil supplies. Reducing our oil supplies result in increased costs, resulting in increased prices at the pumps. Increased prices at the pumps results in less consumption as people make it their business to consume less. Increased prices also make Americans more inclined to develop alternative energies. This is not to be confused with domestic production of fossil fuels. Alternative energy development – regardless of how inefficient it may be at the moment – has always been an ideological goal of this Administration.
Is this the missing piece of the puzzle? God only knows. But I do know that somewhere there is an answer and somehow that answer doesn’t translate to Mr. Obama having the good of America in mind.