Started with a Peace Prize and is ending with wars everywhere.

In an example of shameful political correctness Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace in 2009. While accepting his award he said,"More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace." So, while accepting a Peace Prize he was talking about war. It is no surprise that his 8 years in power have seen conflicts everywhere. It is impossible to understand why he learnt nothing from the sectarian violence in Iraq after the removal of Saddam Hussein. Goaded by David Cameron of Britain and Nicolas Sarkozy of France he killed Gaddafi of Libya, which precipitated a civil war till today. So, why was he so reluctant to attack Bashar al-Assad of Syria, when the Syrian civil war started a month after the one in Libya? Surely not because he is squeamish about taking human lives because he has killed hundreds of civilians using drones. We will probably never know but it maybe because 10% of the population are Christians who support the Alawi government of Assad or maybe because it would be dangerous for Israel to have a hostile Sunni government across its border. Afghanistan is in a mess, with the Taliban controlling 30% of territory. All that money and loss of life will have been for nothing. South Sudan, once seen as a triumph of Obama's foreign policy, is in an uneasy truce after a civil war. "What strikes me is how different our concept of war was seven years ago," said Jon Alterman, a Middle East expert."We are engaged in a whole series of infinitely sustainable, low-level action that have no logical endpoint. When do we stop doing drone attacks in Yemen and Pakistan? What level of terrorism is acceptable?......We're engaged in battles with a whole range of groups that are never going to surrender, so how do you decide to stop it? How do you decide what winning looks like?" This is the problem with the west, still stuck in the old colonial mentality of exercising power through superior weapons. When battles were fought with muskets and canons it was possible but the weapons now are so powerful that using them create too much slaughter and, with cameras everywhere, they are more ornaments than tools. Protecting lives has to be based on principles, not on the destructive capacity of weapons. Why create enmity with Russia over Ukraine and economic sanctions when you cannot beat the Taliban? Should never have accepted the Prize.