Strategic Patience and the Great Appeaser

by Jerry Richardson   2/7/15

Oh boy!  We finally have Obama’s latest and greatest National Security Strategy—or more correctly National Insecurity Strategy.

The Strategy was delivered on Friday (2/6/2015) by one of Obama’s top super-flak, trained-seal liars,  National Security Advisor, Susan Rice—yeah the same Susan Rice who went on 5-straight national TV programs and peddled the known-at-the-time lie that the Benghazi attack (resulting in four American deaths) was caused by a “protest” resulting from an anti-Islamic video.

Rice appeared on Friday (2/6/2015) on TV (giving a speech to the Brookings Institute) where she lauded President Obama’s latest so-called National security Strategy of “Strategic Patience”—yeah, fits perfectly with Obama’s bold non-leadership strategy of “Leading from Behind.”

This is certainly where Obama has placed the USA: Behind, behind the eight-ball, behind ISIS, and behind all the rest of the motley collections of Islamic-Terrorists in the world.  The weakness and danger of appeasement is that it always puts a nation or an individual behind—but after all behind well-describe a position of submission, which is, of course, exactly what the word Islam means: Submission. Obama’s two strategies mentioned above could correctly be translated as “Strategic Submission” and “Leading into Submission.”

Obama writes in his introduction to the 35-page policy document:

“The challenges we face require strategic patience and persistence.”
National Security Adviser Susan Rice, speaking Friday [2/6/2015] at the Brookings Institution, said the strategy recognizes the need to confront today’s challenges of fighting terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons “even as we rally the world to meet the threats of tomorrow.” Those threats include cyber-warfare, climate change, pandemic diseases and competition in space.

But even with those threats, she insisted that the world is safer than it was a generation or two ago.

“But too often, what’s missing here in Washington is a sense of perspective,” she said. “While the dangers we face may be more numerous and varied, they are not of the existential nature we confronted during World War II or during the Cold War. We cannot afford to be buffeted by alarmism in a nearly instantaneous news cycle.”

Obama embraces doctrine of ‘strategic patience’

Obama’s “strategy” of “Strategic Patience” i.e., “Strategic Submission” of course lines-up perfectly with his current attempts to appease Iran by allowing them to continue undeterred their efforts toward the development of nuclear armament.   The obvious dangers of this have not gone unnoticed:

AS THE Obama administration pushes to complete a nuclear accord with Iran, numerous members of Congress, former secretaries of state and officials of allied governments are expressing concern about the contours of the emerging deal
The problems raised by authorities ranging from Henry Kissinger, the country’s most senior former secretary of state, to Sen. Timothy M. Kaine, Virginia’s junior senator, can be summed up in three points:

●First, a process that began with the goal of eliminating Iran’s potential to produce nuclear weapons has evolved into a plan to tolerate and temporarily restrict that capability.

●Second, in the course of the negotiations, the Obama administration has declined to counter increasingly aggressive efforts by Iran to extend its influence across the Middle East and seems ready to concede Tehran a place as a regional power at the expense of Israel and other U.S. allies.

●Finally, the Obama administration is signaling that it will seek to implement any deal it strikes with Iran — including the suspension of sanctions that were originally imposed by Congress — without a vote by either chamber. Instead, an accord that would have far-reaching implications for nuclear proliferation and U.S. national security would be imposed unilaterally by a president with less than two years left in his term.
The emerging Iran nuclear deal raises major concerns 

Obama is desperate for some sort of “deal” that he can self-praise about and back-slap himself while taking selfies; all objective observers know he is willing to concede practically anything or everything.  “Obama isn’t just giving Iran the store; he’s giving it the neighborhood.”

Mark Dubowitz, who is the executive director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies has been quoted as saying:  “Iran has ‘hooked the fish’ with Western negotiators so committed to negotiations that they will do whatever it takes to keep everyone at the table.”

And what is the bait that Iran has used to “hook” Obama?  The bait is their assurance to the ideological-fool that they will be satisfied with his agreed-to appeasement efforts. No, of course they would never pull a North Korea on any agreement; of course not.

So what will Obama personally get out of this?

He will get the opportunity to publically congratulate himself with the pretense that he, the great negotiator, has dealt with the threat that a nuclear-Iran poses to the peace of the middle-east and to the world.  In private he will convince himself that history will record that he deserved his effortless Nobel Peace Prize, for bringing “peace in our time”—Chamberlain’s self-evaluation of his negotiation with Adolph Hitler.

And what will the USA and Israel and the rest of the free-for-now western-world get from Obama’s bogus, quasi-treaty? Nothing…Nada…Zip except more contempt, gloating, and attacks from Islamist-Jihadists.

As I said in an earlier article: Shades of 1938!

The last fish “hooked” of comparable size was Neville Chamberlain when his “hooking” by Adolph Hitler subsequently led directly to World War II.

Remember the song by the Platters, The Great Pretender (1956).  In case you have forgotten what it sounded like, or have never heard it because you are too young, here’s the link to the song on YouTube, The Great Pretender. The lyrics of the song are completely apropos for a paraphrased song, The Great Appeaser, if we change just a few key words:


Oh-oh, yes I’m the great appeaser
Pretending that evil is swell
My narcissism is such I lie too much
I’m a closet-Islamist who must not tell.

Oh-oh, yes I’m the great appeaser
Adrift in a world of my own
I’ve changed the game; USA’s to blame
Now I’m the first US King on my throne.

So real my progressive-sense of utopian-ideal
So real when I feel what my lies can’t conceal

Yes I’m the great appeaser
Just laughin’ and gay like a clown
I seem to be what I’m not, you see
I’m wearing ideology as a crown
Pretending that National-security is sound.

So real my progressive-sense of utopian-ideal
So real when I feel what my lies can’t conceal

Yes I’m the great appeaser
Just laughin’ and gay like a clown
I seem to be what I’m not, you see
I’m wearing ideology as a crown
Pretending that national-security is sound.

©2015, Jerry Richardson

Have a blog post you want to share? Click here. • (1281 views)

This entry was posted in Blog Post. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Strategic Patience and the Great Appeaser

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Jihad’s Man in the White House definitely has national security in mind — but whose? Unfortunately, it isn’t ours.

    Very nice song parody. Unfortunately, I’m not sufficiently familiar with the words of the original to compare them. (I like making good use of the original when I can. My parody “The Mask of Obama” uses fairly lengthy sections from the original poem by Shelley, for example.)

  2. Jerry Richardson says:

    Yes, Obama’s “Strategy of Patience” with Iran is actually a “Strategy of Submission” and the primary part amounts to a “slow-motion acquiescence to Iran’s terms” concerning its nuclear weapons program.

    When President Obama initiated talks with Iran on its nuclear program, both he and Iran’s leaders insisted they would be limited to the outstanding nuclear dispute. But it soon became clear that Obama had higher hopes and had begun to see the talks as a prism through which to view, and even solve, the region’s troubles.

    The clearest sign of a new attitude was the growing, if tacit, coordination between Washington and Tehran in Iraq. Secretary of State John Kerry lauded Iranian efforts while Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, went further, declaring, “Iranian influence will be positive.”
    The slow-motion acquiescence to Iran’s terms in talks over Tehran’s nuclear weapons program is the icing on the cake. If the president’s State of the Union threat to veto new Iran sanctions wasn’t enough, reports that Washington is now comfortable with Iran keeping most of its current arsenal of 10,000 uranium-enriching centrifuges are a clear sign that change is afoot.

    The dangerous allure of partnering with Iran

    Backward Ho! And into weakness we go with Obama’s new through-the-looking-glass National Insecurity Strategy; and his bassackward timidity of “leading from behind.”

    • Timothy Lane says:

      “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” It was after the Bowe Bergdahl trade — especially the fact that the prisoners he released were Taliban, whereas the separate Haqqani Network (who had no interest in releasing Taliban members held prisoner) held Bergdahl, thus suggesting that getting the deserter back was really an excuse for releasing 5 terrorists — that I first decided Barry Screwtape Obama had actually committed treason according to the definition in the Constitution.

      • Jerry Richardson says:


        —that I first decided Barry Screwtape Obama had actually committed treason according to the definition in the Constitution. —Timothy Lane

        Is there any serious Constitutional-offense that he hasn’t committed?

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Probably not. A group of Tea Party victims of the IRS, on FNC one evening, noted that IRS actions against various groups had violated everything in the Bill of Rights.

  3. Jerry Richardson says:

    Obama met with the Muslim Brotherhood just one day after the torching of the Jordanian pilot; for anyone other than Barack Hussein Obama this would have been an unthinkable act.

    When, if ever, will the majority of this nation realize that Obama is NOT on the side of the USA.

    The Muslim Brotherhood Comes to the White House

    [2/7/2015] The Obama White House has finally released the names of the fourteen Muslim “leaders” who met with the President this past week. Among the group — which included a comedian, along with a hijab-wearing basketball player and a handful of left wing activists — were a select few individuals with disturbingly close ties to the global Muslim Brotherhood.
    The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Islamic cleric (and Hitler admirer) Hassan al-Banna after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

    The group seeks as its end-game to install a Sunni Islamic caliphate throughout the world. al-Banna said of his organization’s goals, “It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.” Both Former Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden and ISIS “caliph” Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi were members of the Brotherhood. Its current spiritual leader, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, has a knack for bashing Jews and praising Nazis. The Muslim Brotherhood’s motto remains: “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

    The Muslim Brotherhood Comes to the White House

    • Timothy Lane says:

      The idea that the President is a traitor who actually supports the other side in a war is simply unacceptable for most people to believe. And his drone strikes look like proof to the contrary rather than protective coloration. (Incidentally, has a cartoon noting that Satan’s Spawn has killed more people with drone strikes than the Spanish Inquisition did in 300 years.)

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Another interesting and very relevant item is a Town Hall article by Bethany Blankley identifying numerous Muslim connections to the Obama Gang. In particular, she points out that Valerie Jarrett (daughter of Americaphobes who moved to Iran, as I recently learned) is in fact a Muslim. And there are many other such connections, though none as important as Jarrett. The link is:

  4. Jerry Richardson says:

    Obama’s fabulist national security strategy
    This White House fable won’t keep American safe.

    To believe and accept any part of President Obama’s new national security strategy requires the willing suspension of disbelief. It’s a statement of bold leadership, in almost Churchillian terms, but it bears no relationship to the president’s actions or the current state of the world.
    Perhaps the strangest parts of the “strategy” are the ones that address Iran directly and indirectly. The president asserts that our negotiations with Iran have already stopped the progress of its nuclear weapons program. That proposition is refuted by the facts we know and is entirely unverified. He argues that the best way to advance our interests is to continue along the path the Iranians and he have charted for the negotiations.

    If that is true, why is Mr. Obama going to such great lengths to ensure that the agreement, whenever it is finalized, will never be submitted to the Senate for ratification?

    Under this “strategy,” Mr. Obama says we will not hesitate to take “decisive action,” but only “legally, discriminately, proportionally, and bound by strict accountability .” This is the heart of the president’s policy. He restricts us to acting proportionally, which means that the enemy can dictate the terms of any war. As I wrote on Sept. 11, 2001, in a column that appeared on this page the following day, that is a policy of appeasement. It promises our enemies that we will never take sufficient action to defeat them decisively.
    The paper, as expected, continues to assert that climate change is a top strategic threat to American security.

    Obama’s fabulist national security strategy

  5. Jerry Richardson says:

    The most logical ambition-driven explanation for Obama’s acts of appeasement and unfriendly treatment of Israel is that he wants to be the UN Secretary General after his Presidency ends:

    President Obama is basically a Marxist of the “Third World” variety, which means that he lives in the faith that some elite political minority can rule first the United States and Europe, and then the world. In Washington speculation is rife that the end of the Obama years is only the beginning of a run for UN Secretary General, a job he can fiddle into real power, using leftist and Muslim regimes from around the world to support him. Obama’s ambition runs his mind and his life. He can’t face the end of power.
    After watching the man for almost a decade, this is the only ambition that makes sense of his actions. It explains his consistent favoritism for Muslims, no matter how radical or violent. It explains his surrender to Iran’s nukes, and his constant collusion with the Muslim Brotherhood, now in active civil war with Egypt’s President El Sisi. It explains his comfort with the medieval war theology of Islam, which is also a world-conquering faith.
    We are seeing an unstoppable force gathering steam against an immovable object.
    That is the real nature of today’s argument about Netanyahu’s desire to speak to the U.S. Congress, and Obama’s rage against any opposition to his nuclear surrender. Netanyahu sees his chance to talk to Congress and the American people as the last chance to stop suicidal appeasement to a fanatical regime that preaches suicidal warfare against its theological enemies. Obama is bound and determined to surrender to Iranian nukes, because that will give him the power to force Israel’s hand. The Iranian Crescent now surrounds Israel, and it directly threatens Egypt and Saudi Arabia as well. Obama’s every action has been designed to weaken Israel’s sovereignty, in collusion with the European Left, which just recognized Hamas as having standing at the European court in Geneva.

    Obama as UN Sec General

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Who can doubt that the man wants to be President of the World? But becoming U.N. Secretary General would likely be the culmination of his Leftism, not the cause of it.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      One problem with this is that too many third world nations (and even Arab nations) don’t like the Muslim Brotherhood, and Iran even less so. I think the likeliest explanation is indeed that he (and advisors such as Iranian-born Muslim Valerie Jarrett) are sympathetic to radical Islam.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *