Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Is President Obama Serious About Syria?

President Obama is scheduled to address the American people later today. The Nobel Peace Prize winner wants Congress to authorize an act of war. An attack, even one described by Secretary of State John Kerry as “incredibly small” is still an act of war, a casus belli. The President, who on 9/11 one year ago refused to lift even a finger to defend American diplomats in Benghazi, is asking the American people on 9/11 today to support an attack upon a country which has not attacked America, Americans, or otherwise posed a threat to the national security of the United States. The President, who decried President Bush for lacking a coalition to attack Iraq, is asking Congress to attack Syria with the coalition of two. President Bush had 48 countries, including Great Britain, in his coalition. President Obama can only enlist France in a coalition against Syria. The Arab League and United Nations are unsupportive. He can’t even get NATO on board. President Obama, after speaking against Syria on Saturday, then played golf. President Obama, who has demonized Republicans for his five years in office, is pleading with Republicans to support him. President Obama, an anti-war Democrat, wants anti-war Democrats to vote for military force against Syria. Republicans are normally hawks and Democrats doves. Republicans are hawks when it involves national security. Democrats, who otherwise oppose military action, like to use the American military to enforce international human rights. President Obama is asking the American people and Congress to support military action against Assad for using chemical and biological weapons, but is strangely quiet against war crimes committed by the rebels. He cannot explain any compelling reason for America to act, except to back up his red line threat. Even Vietnam had a better justification. Secretary of State Kerry tells us that if Assad falls, then the successful rebels will be moderates. The history of revolutions, the French revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Iranian Revolution, and the Egyptian Revolution, shows radicals pushing aside the moderates in consolidating power. The American people understand Al Qaeda is powerful in the rebel ranks. The President promised the shipment of arms to the rebels, but none have reached them months later. Why should members of Congress trust him? The President has proven himself feckless with Syria and foreign policy in general. He has backed himself and The United States in a lose-lose scenario. Why should he expect members of Congress to vote on military action in Syria when any vote contains a high risk and little political benefit? The risk is great, but the potential strikes are small. Why should Congress approve it? Does anyone understand the Obama foreign policy? The media is now reporting that the Obama Administration weakened the curbs on the domestic surveillance program of the NSA (National Security Agency). Why should Congress support him on Syria? Why should Congress and the American people, after Afghanistan and Iraq, support the onslaught of hostilities in Syria when no end game is in sight? Does President Obama still believe in the power of his rhetoric? Has president Obama lost the bully pulpit? Is he believeable?

No comments: