There are numerous pundits and political followers who are quite upset about President Obama’s news conference in Turkey where he stated his ISIS strategy “is working”.
An example of the punditry proclamations can be encapsulated within this commentary of CNN contributors as outlined by NewsBusters:
On Monday, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour and two of her network’s analysts blasted President Obama moments after he ended a press conference where he defended his anti-ISIS strategy. Amanpour underlined that Obama “something that was pretty incredible…that our strategy is working. People do not believe that to be the case. The only strategy that’s working is the strategy that he tends to dismiss — and that’s the ground troop strategy.
Sinjar, Tikrit, Kobani — those are the only ISIS strongholds that have been taken back by a combination of American intelligence and air power, and local ground forces.” (video at link)
Indeed, if you were to google search the various media reports about President Obama’s delivered position almost all of them reflect a similar sentiment. Media scratching their heads and twisting into pretzel contortions wondering why Obama continues to proclaim his ISIS strategy is a success.
What the talking heads all avoid noticing is everything reconciles if you just change position on what the Obama goals are. If you think about President Obama’s goals as NOT wanting to see authentic Islam (ISIS) deconstructed then everything reconciles.
♦ The trucks loaded with oil controlled by ISIS have been driving around Iraq and Syria for well over a year. If Obama wanted to eliminate their financial benefit, he could target and wipe out those transits easily – he didn’t.
♦ Turkey worked strenuously to block anyone from attacking ISIS during the seige of Kobane. If Obama wanted to support the Syrian Kurds in Kobane, and confront ISIS, he could have confronted Recep Erdogan about blocking the use of the NATO base in Incirlik – he didn’t.
♦ If Obama wanted to defeat ISIS in Northern Turkey he could have provided weapons to the Kurdish forces there. Again, he didn’t.
♦ ISIS is now recognized to be a significant entity within Libya, specifically Eastern Libya, a nation where President Obama took action to remove the prior dictator Momar Kaddaffi. If Obama wanted to eliminate ISIS in Libya he would be welcomed to attack them with open arms. He doesn’t. Obama actually makes no attempt at all to engage in Libya.
If you reset your paradigm and accept that President Obama doesn’t necessarily want to see authentic Islam (ISIS) defeated – every contradiction reconciles. It’s called Occam’s Razor:
“The simplest explanation is usually the right one”.
The simplest explanation is that Obama doesn’t want to see authentic Islam defeated.
If you re-purpose your frame of reference, and accept that President Obama is not invested in the defeat of ISIS, but rather sympathetic to the sentiments contained in their misunderstood expressions of Islam, every action taken by President Obama reconciles so neatly it cannot be mere happenstance.
Now, the central element in applying ‘Occam’s Razor’, and determining if the perspective is indeed worthy of merit, is to use the Scientific Method of analysis to attack the hypothesis.
It works like this – the hypothesis is:
President Obama wants to allow ISIS to exist, he essentially supports the expression of their views on Islam; however, he faces a problem where he must hide his intent because his viewpoint is antithetical to the rest of the world.
To test the merit of the thesis – apply the Scientific Method, reverse the hypothesis and look for examples of specific behavior that would contradict the thesis. See if you can identify behavior that proves:
♦ President Obama doesn’t want ISIS to exist and is not hiding his intents.
Can you identify specific action, that means “behavior”, that supports President Obama wanting to eliminate ISIS?
Now, please watch this brief video closely. It has been enhanced/emphasized to drive home a point I am unable to deconstruct: