Barack Obama is a warrior in chief, but is he fighting for or against America?

A few days ago, the New York Times ran an article assuring everyone that Barack Obama isn’t a wuss, he’s a warrior.  I have only a couple of points.

First, considering that Obama has been and is such an aggressive President, one who has seen more troops die on his watch in Afghanistan than Bush did during the years he was Commander in Chief, one does have to ask Where are the protests?  Don’t worry, I don’t expect an answer to this purely rhetorical question, aimed at showing the incredible hypocrisy that powers politics on the Left.

Second, there is a difference between being aggressive and being smart.  Obama sat back while Iran was in a useful state of turmoil (during the Green revolution), thereby forfeiting a perfect opportunity to destabilize one of the most dangerous states in the world.  His current “soft” diplomacy has done nothing to calm Iranian aggression.

The other night, on Leno, an MSM correspondent said that Iraq is now an Iranian satellite.  I’m sure the families of those who died in Iraq appreciate hearing that.

Obama squandered American resources in Libya, which has become an anarchic Islamic state, and will surely become an anarchic Islamist terrorist state soon.  Obama abandoned our allies in Central Europe, leaving them to Putin’s tender (and, I’m sure, flexible) mercies.  Egypt, which was ugly but stable in a vaguely secular way, is now more ugly, dangerously unstable, broke, and heading towards radical Islamism.  Syria is becoming a slaughterhouse under the tender loving care of its Vogue-ish first couple, but Obama, who raced into Libya (which was a nominal ally, or at least a passive party, in the Middle East), sits on his hands as people die.

So, sure, Obama’s not afraid to use military might (which is no surprise to those who understand the Left’s obsession with brute force), but a big question mark remains as to whether he is using that might for America’s benefit.