Hillary Clinton and most in Washington seem to be beating the drum of getting more directly involved in the Middle East. The President is advocating a more deliberate approach. Who is right. Perhaps Obama's heritage gives him a clearer view.
There is a third philosophy to the middle east. Could those having the commonality of radical Islam be carrying out a very sophisticated and long attack against the west, especially the United States? It started with 911 and has not stopped.
The bull expends his time and energy focused on a red cape that is eternally illusive to him. He relentlessly and frustratingly tries to gore the cape to no avail. As the bull expends much of his energy the matador places sharp spears with barbs in the bulls back further draining his strength.
After exhausting the strength of the bull, the matador steps in and kills the bull by thrusting a sword between the shoulder blades of the bull. The matador would never have been able to kill the bull without the advance work to drain the strength of the bull.
Is radical Islam the matador and Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and now ISIS the picadors, spears and swords weakening the west until radical Islam can kill it off? The strategy of George Bush was to attack the cape called Bin Laden and got further sidetracked with Saddam Hussein. Obama stepped in and was determined to get us out of both Iraq and Afghanistan. Is ISIS another radical Islamic distraction to further wear us down and erode our mite so the matador some day can drive the sword between our shoulder blades?
Perhaps this is what Obama sees that others, including Hillary Clinton, does not.