Obama’s Unwilling Un-Coalition | A coalition of the willing? Not so much.

Obama’s inability to cobble together even a pathetically small coalition to fight the most vicious jihad army in the world is a stunning reflection of Obama’s routing of American hegemony and power on the world stage.  Longtime allies Germany and the UK have refused the bumbling jihadi in the White House.  The media derided George Bush’s “Coalition of the Willing” — 48 countries. 48. But nothing negative over Obama’s utter destruction of our allied relationships.  

Now Obama is playing the same game that Arab leaders have been playing for a long time: ignore terrorism until you feel the flame. No Arab leader is willing to wage war against jihadists who, unlike what Obama says, represent true Islam and its dream of a Caliphate.  That very same reason explains why Obama did not want to defend the consulate in Benghazi with American soldiers against the Muslim attackers and employed useless Libyan security instead. He did not want to fight jihadists in Libya and wanted to remain the hero who liberated Libya. But again Islamists failed him.

President Golf-in-Chief Hussein Obama BOWS (!!!!) at Saudi monarch

Now, Obama is calling on Arab countries to join his coalition against ISIS. But that will not happen because, like Obama, Arab leaders are afraid of appearing treasonous to Islam. They do not want to join a coalition with America (the Infidel) against those who are obeying Allah’s commandment to achieve the Islamic State. No Muslim nation will seriously attack ISIS, whom they claim to be un-Islamic, even to defend what they call the real Muslim victims. They claim that ISIS is ruining the reputation of Islam, but proud Muslim leaders who love true Islam are looking the other way.

Saudi Arabia and the Gulf countries are paralyzed, the same as Obama. Instead of rushing to wage war to end ISIS slaughter and expansion, Arab ‘allies’ of the U.S. chose to do nothing. Now the important question is: Why is it that the famous Arab honor not offended by ISIS?

Arabs who would not hesitate to kill their own daughters if they do not follow Islam do not want to touch ISIS, which they claim has disgraced Islam. This does not add up.

Many Arab governments grumbled quietly in 2011 as the United States left Iraq, fearful it might fall deeper into chaos or Iranian influence. Now, the United States is back and getting a less than enthusiastic welcome, with leading allies like Egypt, Jordan and Turkey all finding ways on Thursday to avoid specific commitments to President Obama’s expanded military campaign against Sunni extremists.

As the prospect of the first American strikes inside Syria crackled through the region, the mixed reactions underscored the challenges of a new military intervention in the Middle East, where 13 years of chaos, from Sept. 11 through the Arab Spring revolts, have deepened political and sectarian divisions and increased mistrust of the United States on all sides.  Secretary of State John Kerry in Saudi Arabia, where he spoke to officials from across the region. Credit Pool photo by Brendan Smialowski  The tepid support could further complicate the already complex task Mr. Obama has laid out for himself in fighting the extremist Islamic State in Iraq and Syria: He must try to confront the group without aiding Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, or appearing to side with Mr. Assad’s Shiite allies, Iran and the militant group Hezbollah, against discontented Sunnis across the Arab world.

While Arab nations allied with the United States vowed on Thursday to “do their share” to fight ISIS and

issued a joint communiqué supporting a broad strategy, the underlying tone was one of reluctance. The government perhaps most eager to join a coalition against ISIS was that of Syria, which Mr. Obama had already ruled out as a partner for what he described as terrorizing its citizens.  Syria’s deputy foreign minister, Fayssal Mekdad, told NBC News that Syria and the United States were “fighting the same enemy,” terrorism, and that his government had “no reservations” about airstrikes as long as the United States coordinated with it. He added, “We are ready to talk.”

Others were less than forthcoming. The foreign minister of Egypt — already at odds with Mr. Obama over the American decision to withhold some aid after the Egyptian military’s ouster last year of the elected president — complained that Egypt’s hands were full with its own fight against “terrorism,” referring to the Islamist opposition.  Obama wants to send the Free Syrian Army into combat, with US arms, against the Islamic State. The problem with this is that it has been abundantly documented that the Free Syrian Army is collaborating with the Islamic State. They also have the same goal: a Sunni Sharia state in Syria. So Obama’s policy is futile and incoherent.

Why is Obama changing his tune on ISIS/Iraq and Syria?  He is trying to cover for his disastrous backing of Syrian jihadis against Assad last year.  He helped create the Islamic State by withdrawing precipitously from Iraq.  This fact was predicted by Obama's nemesis....Pres. George W Bush.   Then he gave the “moderates” in Syria weapons, but they weren’t moderates and turned over their weapons to the Islamic State, or in some cases the Islamic State captured them. So the Islamic State has won some of its victories with help from American weaponry.

The truth revealed on Wednesday night is that Obama cannot lead a successful war against the forces of Islamic jihad that threaten humanity. He cannot do so because he rejects the moral clarity required to confront the danger.  He cannot successfully lead the war because, as we saw once again on Wednesday night, he is not a leader. He is a politician.  Remember...leaders are born but politicians are elected......maybe!

- See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2014/09/obamas-unwilling-un-coalition.html/#sthash.RsKlUd0Z.dpuf