The Dangers Of 'Leading From Behind'

     If there is one truism that reveals itself with age, it is that one can choose not to participate in life's decisions, but make no mistake, those decisions will be made for the individual by some person or entity that may not have the best interest of the individual at heart. It is always better to participate fully in life and choose the path to be taken, rather than to let others choose your path. But this is exactly what has transpired with the Obama administration's strategy of "leading from behind."
     The President thinks that by leading from behind, he will avoid the perception around the world that, as he has framed it in the past, "America has been arrogant." But we have seen the results of this strategy in the Middle-East, others have made decisions for the United States which not only do a disservice to our national interests, but to the cause of liberty and decency in those affected countries.     
     In Libya, President Obama lead from behind and replaced Muammar Al-Gaddafi with a radical Islamic government controlled by Al Queda-style groups, which the Obama administration armed with weapons to help them overthrow their government. Gaddafi was a tyrant, but had been cowed into submission by the actions of the Bush administration, and was neutralized. The Egyptian debacle was even worse because the President supported the overthrow of an American ally, Hosni Mubarak, and replaced him with our enemy, the Muslim Brotherhood's own Mohamed Morsi, whose stated goal is to "Prepare for war with Israel." The three decades-long peace between these two countries was nurtured by Mr. Mubarak and is now in danger of disintegrating. And once again in Syria, President Obama wants to arm radical Islamists, ostensibly to overthrow the government there.
     Time after time, in the last four and a half years, President Obama has allowed decisions to be made by other entities, especially as they apply to the Middle-East. When Barack Obama commenced his term as United States President, there was still hope in Afghanistan that the Taliban would be permanently vanquished, Egypt was lead by a government that was an ally and committed to stopping terrorists and keeping the peace with Israel, Iran had a robust populace opposition to their tyrannical government, Libya was in the hands of a neutered tyrant and the forces of good lead by the U.S. were beginning to prevail over the forces of evil in the Middle-East. As a result of the Obama doctrine of leading from behind, the Taliban is in a robust resurgence and has chased the U.S. out of Afghanistan, Egypt is in the hands of our enemies and is committed to radical Islam which threatens Israel, the Iranian government has squashed any hopes of a rebellion there, Libya has turned into a country where a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans can be murdered and nothing is done and the entire Middle-East, as well as the world, is less safe from an ever growing radical Islamic threat.
     I am not blaming Barack Obama for the existence of radical Islam, it has existed for hundreds of years. But radical Islam never had state sponsorship in the modern era until Jimmy Carter handed over Iran to the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1978. That too was a case of a U.S. President turning on an ally in favor of an enemy. It is fitting then for Barack Obama to complete the work begun by Jimmy Carter 35 years ago, and hand over the rest of the Middle-East to terrorist forces. I think it was John Lennon who once stated, "Life is what happens while you are making other plans." If that axiom was applied to the Obama administration, one would need to modify it to, "Tyranny is what happens in the Middle-East while Barack Obama leads from behind."