I was thoroughly glad to see the era of George W. Bush come to an end. He had, I believed, become a terrible liability for America–in both foreign and domestic policy.
In foreign affairs, America had become entrapped in a totally needless war in Iraq. And by authorizing the use of torture, he had turned the United States into a pariah nation in the eyes of much of the civilized world.
Domestically, he had allowed the sheer greed and arrogance of America’s most powerful corporations to push the nation to the brink of bankruptcy.
So during the early weeks of President Barack Obama’s first term, I sent him a gift: My favorite selections from the two major works of Niccolo Machiavelli: The Prince and The Discourses.
Niccolo Machiavelli
I hoped that, on at least some occasions, the new President would find useful advice in the wisdom of the father of political science.
Unfortunately, such has not been the case.
For example:
United Nations officials estimate that more than 6,000 people have died in Syria since fighting erupted in 2011 against the regime of dictator Bashir al-Assad.
During that time, the world made no move to intervene–for a series of excellent reasons. Among these:
- 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 these: Hezbollah and Hamas (pro-Assad); and Al Qaeda (anti-Assad).
This was the position of the United States as well.
Meanwhile, President Obama said on several occasions that if Assad used chemical weapons against his enemies, that would be “a red line in the sand.”
Then, 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.
He sent Secretary of State John Kerry before TV cameras to express America’s moral outrage at Syria’s use of chemical weapons.
And he positioned six American warships close to the Syrian coast.
On August 31, Obama announced that he would seek Congressional authorization before attacking Syria. Obama said he was “prepared to give that order” to strike Syria because:
- Syria’s use of chemical weapons “risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemicals weapons,” and
- It put U.S. regional allies that share a border with Syria in danger.
It looked as though the United States was about to plunge into its third Middle East war in 12 years.
Then Russian President Vladimir Putin offered his own suggestion for averting war: Syria would agree to put its stocks of chemical weapons under United Nations control.
On September 14, the United States and Russia announced in Geneva that they reached a deal that provided a path for Obama to avoid the air strikes he had promised to launch against Syria.
Suddenly, Obama asked congressional leaders to delay votes on authorizing military action in Syria while the diplomatic process worked itself out.
As “Tonight” show host Jay Leno put it: Obama gave a speech calling for war–and then the rebuttal.
So what does Niccolo Machiavelli have to do with any of this?
In Chapter 19 of The Prince, his guide to successful rulership, he outlines “That We Must Avoid Being Despised and Hated.”
“The prince must…avoid those things which will make him hated or despised. And whenever he succeeds in this, he will have done his part, and will find no danger in other vices….
“He is rendered despicable by being thought changeable, frivolous, effeminate, timid and irresolute—which a prince must guard against as a rock of danger….
“[He] must contrive that his actions show grandeur, spirit, gravity and fortitude. As to the government of his subjects, let his sentence be irrevocable, and let him adhere to his decisions so that no one may think of deceiving or cozening him.”
By making a vigorous case for going to war with Syria, and then suddenly reversing himself, Obama has managed to offend everyone:
- Right-wingers–who hoped to see America plunge into another Middle East war.
- Liberals–who didn’t want to repeat the 2003 Iraqi war disaster.
- Syrian rebels–who expected a full-scale American intervention to bring them to power.
- The Assad regime–which no doubt believes Obama was bluffing.
Unfortunately, history is not a VHS tape that can be rewound. No one–including Obama–gets a second chance to make a first impression.
By repeatedly showing timidity toward Republicans, Obama had forfeited credibility as a leader to be feared by his domestic Right-wing enemies.
President Theodore Roosevelt famously said: “I have always lived by a South African proverb: Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far.”
By speaking loudly and then putting his big stick aside, Obama forfeited credibility among his foreign enemies.

ABC NEWS, BARACK OBAMA, BILL KRISTOL, CBS NEWS, CNN, CONDOLEEZA RICE, FACEBOOK, FOOD STAMPS, GEORGE S. PATTON, IRAN, JOHN MCCAIN, LINDSEY GRAHAM, NBC NEWS, REPUBLICANS, SYRIA, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WASHINGTON POST, TWITTER
REPUBLICAN PRIORITIES: BOMBING IS GOOD, FOOD STAMPS ARE BAD
In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on September 17, 2013 at 12:00 amIn the 1970 film, Patton, General George S. Patton is a man driven by his obsession to be the best field commander in the war–and to be recognized for it.
George C. Scott as George S. Patton
And he sees British General Bernard Montgomery–his equally egotistical rival–as a potential obstacle to that latter ambition.
So, in Algeria, he conjures up a plan that will sideline “Monty” while he, Patton, defeats the Germans–and bags the glory.
The trick lies in throwing a sumptuous dinner-–in the middle of the African desert-–for a visiting British general: Harold Alexander.
As Patton (George C. Scott, in an Oscar-winning performance) tells his aide: “I want to give a dinner for General Alexander. I want to get to him before Montgomery does. I want the finest food and the best wine available. Everything.”
The aide pulls off the dinner–where, indeed, “the finest food and the best wine” are on full display, along with attentive waiters and a candelabra.
So think about it:
a handful of ultra-pampered American and British military officers find the time–and luxuries–to throw themselves a fine party.
Now, fast-forward from Algeria in 1943 to Washington, D.C., in 2013.
Returning to Congress after their traditional summer recess, House Republicans plan to cut $40 billion in food stamps for the poor. That’s double the amount previously sought by right-wingers.
The cuts would include drug tests of applicants and tougher work rules. As Republicans see it: There’s no point in “helping” the poor if you can’t humiliate them.
Food stamps, the largest U.S. anti-hunger program, are the pivotal issue for a new U.S. farm law costing $100 billion a year.
One in seven Americans–15% of U.S. households–received food stamps at latest count. Enrollment in the program soared after the 2008-09 recession–a direct consequence of the Bush administration’s refusal to regulate powerful, greed-fueled corporations.
Republicans claim the program is unbearably expensive at $78 billion a year.
Meanwhile, as 49 million Americans havetrouble putting meals on the table, Republicans are eager to spend billions of dollars for another project.
An unnecessary war with Syria.
One of these right-wingers is Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard–and one of the leading instigators of the 2003 war with Iraq.
He–like senior officials on the George W. Bush administration–claimed that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and planned to use them against the United States.
He also pushed the lie that Hussein planned 9/11 with Osama bin Laden.
He has never apologized for either lie–or the resulting war that killed 4,487 American soldiers and wounded another 32,226.
In a recent column, Kristol called for a return to slaughter–not only in Syria but Iran as well:
“…Soon after voting to authorize the use of force against the Assad regime, Republicans might consider moving an authorization for the use of force against the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
“They can explain that Obama’s dithering in the case of Syria shows the utility of unequivocally giving him the authority to act early with respect to Iran.”
Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice–who also helped lie the nation into the needless 2003 Iraq war–is another big promoter of “give war a chance”:
“My fellow Americans, we do not have a choice. We cannot be reluctant to lead–and one cannot lead from behind.”
Among Republican Senators calling for war are John McCain (Arizona) and Lindsey Graman (South Carolina), who issued a joint statement:
“Using stand-off weapons, without boots on the ground, and at minimal risk to our men and women in uniform, we can significantly degrade Assad’s air power and ballistic missile capabilities and help to establish and defend safe areas on the ground.
“In addition, we must begin a large-scale effort to train and equip moderate, vetted elements of the Syrian opposition with the game-changing weapons they need to shift the military balance against [Syrian dictator Bashir] Assad’s forces.”
Except that there are no “moderate, vetted elements of the Syrian opposition. The opposition is just as murderous as the Assad regime–and eager to replace one dictator with another.
In addition: A major weapon for “degrading Assad’s air power” would be Tomahawk Cruise missiles. A single Tomahawk Cruise missile costs $1,410,000.
Firing of a Tomahawk Cruise missile
A protracted missile strike would rain literally billions of dollars’ worth of American missiles on Syria.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon is spending about $27 million a week to maintain the increased U.S. Navy presence in the Mediterranean Sea and Middle East region to keep watch over Syria and be prepared to strike.
Navy officials say it costs about $25 million a week for the carrier group and $2 million a week for each destroyer.
Is there a lesson to be learned from all this?
Yes.
Powerful people–-whether generals, politicians or the wealthy-–will always find abundant money and resources available for those projects they consider important.
It’s only when it comes to projects that other people actually need that such officials will claim there is, unfortunately, a cash shortage.
Share this: