A two-year civil war is raging in Syria.
United Nations officials estimate that 6,000 people have died there trying to overthrow the dictatorial regime of “President” Bashar al-Assad.
And that’s sending jitters through the Washington elite.
Not the casualties. The fact that they’re being shown in vivid color on YouTube and CNN.
And this, in turn, has led many members of Congress and the Obama administration to fear for their jobs. They dread that voters will blame them for not “doing something” to end the fighting.
Like sending in American armed forces to somehow stop it.
Another reason driving America’s headlong rush into war: Sheer stupidity.
Start with the neocons, who lustily supported the 2003 Iraq war have been spoiling for yet another war in the Middle East.
On March 21, 2013, House Foreign Affairs ranking Democrat Eliot Engel (D-NY) and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI) introduced the “Free Syria Act of 2013,” calling on the Obama administration to arm the Syrian rebels.
And on May 27, Arizona U.S. Senator John McCain secretly entered Syria and met with commanders of the Free Syrian Army, who are fighting forces loyal to “President” Bashar al Assad for control of the country.
He was the first U.S. senator to travel to Syria since civil war erupted there in 2011. And after he left, he told CNN that he was more convinced that the United States must become more involved in the country’s conflict.
President Barack Obama could have easily confronted these “give war a chance” enthusiests and put them on the defensive–had he wished to do so.
President Obama at press conference
He could have bluntly and repreatedly used the bully pulpit of his office to warn Americans:
- Since 1979, Syria has been listed by the U.S. State Department as a sponsor of terrorism.
- There are no “good Syrians” for the United States to support. There is a civil war between rival terrorist groups.
- Among the terrorist groups supporting Syrian dictator al-Assad are Hezbollah and Hamas.
- Assad’s enemies include another terrorist group–Al Qaeda.
- Syria has never been an ally of the United States.
- It is, after Iran, the foremost enemy of America’s ally, Israel.
- The United States faces a crumbling infastructure, record high unemployment and trillions of dollars in debt. It’s time for Americans to clean up their own house before worrying about the messes in other nations–especially those wholly alien to American values.
And, most importantly, Obama could have directly challenged the macho ethic of the American Right.
Especially those members of it who, while avoiding military service themselves, are always eager to send others into harm’s way at the slightest excuse.
The President could have officially established an all-volunteer brigade for those Americans willing to fight and possibly die in yet another pointless war. And he could have offered to fly them to the border of Syria so they could carry out their self-appointed “conquer or die” mission.
Of course, many–if not most–of these armchair strategists would have refused to put their own lives on the line in defense of a “cause” they claim to believe in.
But then Obama could have brutally–and repeatedly–pointed this out. Hypocrisy is something Americans understand all too well–and despise.
Instead, for a man celebrated for his oratorical gifts, Obama has managed to talk himself into a no-win situation.
Theodore Roosevelt claimed to operate by a South African proverb: “Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far.”
Obama spoke loudly about the “big stick” of American military power and said that if Assad’s regime used chemical weapons against its enemies, that would be “a red line in the sand.”
By doing so, he needlessly put his credibility as President on the line.
On August 21, the Assad regime was accused of using chemical weapons in Damascus suburbs to kill more than 1,400 civilians.
On August 30, the Obama administration said it had “high confidence” that Syria’s government carried out the chemical weapons attack.
Having boxed himself in, Obama felt he had to make good on his threat–even if it risked the lives of those flying combat missions over Syria’s formidable air defenses.
Yet, even at this late stage, Obama could find a face-saving reason for not intervening. He could state that while there is apparent evidence of a chemical attack, there is no conclusive evidence that this was carried out by the Assad regime.
In short: He could shift the blame to one of the many terror groups operating in Syria–such as Hizbollah or Hammas or Al Qaeda.
This would take the United States off the hook–thus saving the lives of countless American soldiers and avoiding a potential nuclear confrontation with Russia.
But having needlessly put his own credibility–and ego–on the line, this is unlikely.
What’s more likely is Obama will continue to hurtle down the road to disaster.
Bureaucracybuster's Blog
9/11, ABC NEWS, AFGHANISTAN, BARACK OBAMA, BASHIR AL-ASSAD, BILL CLINTON, CBS NEWS, CNN, CONDOLEEZA RICE, DICK CHENEY, DONALD RUMSFELD, FACEBOOK, GEORGE W. BUSH, IRAQ, NBC NEWS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, SADDAM HUSSEIN, SYRIA, TALIBAN, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER
POLITICS BY ORWELL: “WAR IS PEACE”: PART TWO (END)
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on September 5, 2013 at 1:40 pmA two-year civil war is raging in Syria.
United Nations officials estimate that 6,000 people have died there trying to overthrow the dictatorial regime of “President” Bashar al-Assad.
And that’s sending jitters through the Washington elite.
Not the casualties. The fact that they’re being shown in vivid color on YouTube and CNN.
And this, in turn, has led many members of Congress and the Obama administration to fear for their jobs. They dread that voters will blame them for not “doing something” to end the fighting.
Like sending in American armed forces to somehow stop it.
Another reason driving America’s headlong rush into war: Sheer stupidity.
Start with the neocons, who lustily supported the 2003 Iraq war have been spoiling for yet another war in the Middle East.
On March 21, 2013, House Foreign Affairs ranking Democrat Eliot Engel (D-NY) and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI) introduced the “Free Syria Act of 2013,” calling on the Obama administration to arm the Syrian rebels.
And on May 27, Arizona U.S. Senator John McCain secretly entered Syria and met with commanders of the Free Syrian Army, who are fighting forces loyal to “President” Bashar al Assad for control of the country.
He was the first U.S. senator to travel to Syria since civil war erupted there in 2011. And after he left, he told CNN that he was more convinced that the United States must become more involved in the country’s conflict.
President Barack Obama could have easily confronted these “give war a chance” enthusiests and put them on the defensive–had he wished to do so.
President Obama at press conference
He could have bluntly and repreatedly used the bully pulpit of his office to warn Americans:
And, most importantly, Obama could have directly challenged the macho ethic of the American Right.
Especially those members of it who, while avoiding military service themselves, are always eager to send others into harm’s way at the slightest excuse.
The President could have officially established an all-volunteer brigade for those Americans willing to fight and possibly die in yet another pointless war. And he could have offered to fly them to the border of Syria so they could carry out their self-appointed “conquer or die” mission.
Of course, many–if not most–of these armchair strategists would have refused to put their own lives on the line in defense of a “cause” they claim to believe in.
But then Obama could have brutally–and repeatedly–pointed this out. Hypocrisy is something Americans understand all too well–and despise.
Instead, for a man celebrated for his oratorical gifts, Obama has managed to talk himself into a no-win situation.
Theodore Roosevelt claimed to operate by a South African proverb: “Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far.”
Obama spoke loudly about the “big stick” of American military power and said that if Assad’s regime used chemical weapons against its enemies, that would be “a red line in the sand.”
By doing so, he needlessly put his credibility as President on the line.
On August 21, the Assad regime was accused of using chemical weapons in Damascus suburbs to kill more than 1,400 civilians.
On August 30, the Obama administration said it had “high confidence” that Syria’s government carried out the chemical weapons attack.
Having boxed himself in, Obama felt he had to make good on his threat–even if it risked the lives of those flying combat missions over Syria’s formidable air defenses.
Yet, even at this late stage, Obama could find a face-saving reason for not intervening. He could state that while there is apparent evidence of a chemical attack, there is no conclusive evidence that this was carried out by the Assad regime.
In short: He could shift the blame to one of the many terror groups operating in Syria–such as Hizbollah or Hammas or Al Qaeda.
This would take the United States off the hook–thus saving the lives of countless American soldiers and avoiding a potential nuclear confrontation with Russia.
But having needlessly put his own credibility–and ego–on the line, this is unlikely.
What’s more likely is Obama will continue to hurtle down the road to disaster.
Share this:
Related