The Obama Doctrine Is Dead

The Obama Doctrine is as dead as Yahya Sinwar. And the world is better off in both cases.

While the massacre of Oct. 7, 2023, was one of the most traumatic events in modern Jewish history, it’s obvious now that it was a massive, perhaps existential, blunder by the Islamic State as well as a stunning defeat for its allies both in the Middle East and Washington.

Oct. 7 transformed the Middle East in ways that seemed impossible only a few years ago. Hamas, perhaps the most immediate threat to both Jewish and Arab lives in the region, is largely eradicated. Hezbollah, the theocratic militia that’s kept Lebanon in a state of turmoil and war for decades, is reeling.

Indeed, it was Israel’s success against the latter that helped send Bashar Assad, a real-world genocidal dictator, into Russian exile. Most of all, events have left Iran, which spent decades building its proxies throughout the Middle East, impotent.

It’s no surprise that on their way out, Barack Obama cronies in the Biden administration approved another $10 billion in sanctions relief for the mullahs by waiving restricted payment transfers from the Iraqi government.

These are the same people who had attempted to lift Hamas and propped up its benefactors in Iran with planeloads of treasure. And the same people did everything possible to handcuff Israel in its war against Hamas and Hezbollah.

Not only had the White House threatened to withhold aid if the Israeli military went into Rafah to eliminate Hamas battalions cowering behind women and children, but when Israel pulled off its ingenious pager operation, wounding and killing hundreds of Hezbollah operatives, our uncannily misguided secretary of state, Antony Blinken, warned that “all parties” should “avoid escalating conflict,” treating our close allies and Islamists

Fortunately, Israel ignored Joe Biden and eliminated Hassan Nasrallah, who was involved in those murders, and decimated much of Hezbollah’s capacity to wage war.

Come on, David, you should know the words you use. The word "decimate" has a long history extending back to the days of the Roman Empire. If someone committed a military crime (e.g., cowardice, mutiny, etc.) in battle, his battalion was lined up and every 10th soldier was executed. So decimated means a 10% destruction. However, people who are unaware of its origin use the world in a sense that means "eradicate", which is incorrect.

Picky? Perhaps, but use words you know and understand to convey what you mean correctly.

Freegards econjack!

Actually, David is correct in his use of the word, and you are in error. Firstly, you are using what we call the etymological fallacy, which fails in two ways. One way is by missing the actual historical meaning. Though you are technically correct describing the very rare practice of killing the tenth man of a cowardly legion, you do not mention how the Romans used the word to convey the utter disgrace and shame of an entire unit being branded cowards. (Another example of this linguistic phenomenon is the word “tithe”.) The other way is by assuming that the etymology, even if correct, controls the definition of the word through its history of linguistic change. There are even examples in our language where the modern meaning is the opposite of the etymology. (One such is the word, “temper”.)

Secondly, you are forgetting how terminology is used in social situations such as this one. It is acceptable for David to use the emotional intensity of the decimation concept if he means that from the viewpoint of Hezbollah, this has been for them an unmitigated, total disaster. (My wife’s Massachusetts sisters describe things that are intensely good as “wicked” good. We all understand, and nobody brings up the etymology of the term wicked.)

David is using the word as his audience understands it and you are telling him he is using the wrong word. I am completely in sympathy with you because you see good writing as worthy of the trouble it takes, even as I quibble with your definition of decimate while I think you quibble with David.

If David were in my English class, I would point him to the inherent contradiction between his use of the word “decimate” along with the qualifier “much”. If you cannot say that Hezbollah has been decimated..., if you have to pull back and say that much of Hezbollah has been decimated..., or even pull back further and say that what has been decimated is Hezbollah’s “capacity to wage war”..., or even pull back further and say that “much” of their capacity has been..., if you have to hedge what you are saying then don’t say decimate!

If you were in my class :-)
If you were my student, I would tell you that when you make a technical correction like this, you must get the technical details right. “If someone?” It was a military unit not an individual. “Battalion?” Use “legion” instead. “Eradicate?” People use the word to mean total disastrous defeat and imply that there are some people left over to endure the shame.

If I, myself, were in my class, I would say, “BrianD, people don’t want to read your wordy comments”, but I did enjoy writing this and thank you for the opportunity for a little bit of exercise for the little grey cells, and a few minutes of diversion into my favorite subject, linguistics. I really do miss teaching HS English and Latin, so forgive me if I could not help but lecture again :-)

Enjoyed the article, thanks OP!
Appreciate your contribution. You’re a good Freeper here, econjack!

I think I understand what you are saying, but, to me, if the user is trying to convey “eradicate”, which is the case here, use that word, not decimate. “Temper” is probably not the best word to use for a “modern” meaning, since it can be used as both a noun and an intransitive verb which muddies the waters a bit. I’m not so sure using the “modern” use of a word is always helpful. Calling a guy a “hound dog” is probably quite clear to someone under the age of 30, but an old fuddy-duddy is thinking “Why is he calling him a dog?”

Also, decimate is often used in a non-military context (”The town was decimated by the tornado.”). Used in this context, the image sought and conveyed is one of total destruction. Since this is the “eradicate” intent, say that: “The town was totally destroyed by the tornado.” (It didn’t skip nine houses and hit the tenth.)

Another thing that sets me on edge is:

“He’s the man that robbed the bank.”

when they should say

“He’s the man who robbed the bank.”

Even professional broadcasters make this mistake all the time. Some phrases are just “fingernails on a chalkboard” to me and, if I’m having a bad day, I won’t let it pass unnoticed.

Yes, I’m weird when it comes to English (e.g., I have a collection of 1100+ collective nouns)...that’s just me.

Thanks for your reply!
I love this subject.
Even Moreso if he means eradicate, it is so much the worse for hedging with the word ‘much”. As if to say Israel utterly destroyed! eradicated! decimated! a lttle part of Hezbollah’s ability to do something or other. Why does he hedge what he is saying?

I use temper because I often asked my students, “Why do we say you have a temper whenever you lose it?” The HS kids would go, “Huh?” or “Duhhhh...” A perfect example of a word meaning one thing and its opposite. How that came to be is an interesting linguistic story, which I will spare you in mercy and FRiendship.

Enjoyed the reference to “hound dog”. What a change from the meaning used in Elvis’ song. Haha.

Best to you econjack!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.