The community organizer who became president is now trapped in the middle of big time geopolitics with countries like Russia and Iran as he tries to figure out what to do next with Syria. Last year he told the world that Syria would cross a red line if it used chemical weapons against its people. Now that it appears Syria has done just that, Obama is waffling all over the place.
http://www.dw.de/no-more-christmas-berlin-tries-neutrality/a-17040582
If it weren't so tragic, it would be laughable. It reminds you of the kid who is trying to make a show of standing up to the bully and saying, "I dare ya. I double dare ya. I triple dare ya", as the bully calls each bluff. So Obama is consulting with David Cameron and meeting with his team consisting of Joe Biden, John Kerry, James Clapper, Chuck Hagel and John Brennan et al. Meanwhile, he is moving naval carriers closer to Syria and waiting for the experts at the UN to send a team into Syria to look for evidence that by now may have degraded anyway.
Of course, Obama could have spared himself and our country all this embarrassment by not making such bravado statements in the first place. After all, is the US expected to invade every country that commits atrocities against its own people? What if New Guinea uses chemical weapons against innocent villagers next month? What are we supposed to do about it?
Had Obama started assisting rebels in the early stages of this war, he could have found good groups to help. Now it's too late. There are no good guys anymore just bad guys fighting bad guys. So here we are getting involved, and no matter who wins, all we will gain is more Arab enmity, just as we did in Libya.
Obama has painted himself into a corner with Syria, and now it is becoming about how he can save face (his). To make things worse, he is surrounded by incompetents. Just this week, his newly-appointed UN Ambassador, Samantha Power, who had been screaming her head off about Syria, decided to take a vacation in Ireland 19 days after taking over her post and missing a UN Security Council meeting on what to do about Syria's use of chemical weapons.
Maybe Obama should take George Galloway's word for it. This week, the famed British comedian opined that it was Al Qaeda who used the weapons and that they got them from Israel. If that boffo theory were true it would be the perfect alibi for Obama to walk away from the whole thing.
Yeah. Israel. That's the ticket!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
President Obama is restrained by the indecision of the American people. For example, Gary Fouse is livid about the treatment of the Copts in Egypt and the rise of jihadis in the Syrian civil war. But Gary doesn't want to send in any military forces in either place, no more than most other Americans do. Then he takes potshots at the president for doing nothing.
George H.W. Bush thought that with a war in Iraq, we had "kicked the Vietnam syndrome." George W. Bush with another war in Iraq created the "Iraq syndrome." As Lexington recently wrote in The Economist:
"Many angry Egyptians accuse him of secretly supporting the Islamists who ran the country until July. Many others (equally angry) accuse him of backing the generals who overthrew the Islamists. Both charges cannot be right. Indeed, neither is."
"Back home in America too, My. Obama is denounced in stereo. How feckless this president is, thunders a cross-party chorus of congressmen and pundits, urging him to suspend military aid to Egypt, lest America be complicit in a moral disaster. But oh, how reckless this president is, counters a camp that favors realpolitik. The realists, both Republican and Democrat, want Mr. Obama to hold his nose and back Egypt's generals, to ensure stability on Israel's borders and help contain radical Islam."
So what'll it be Gary? Put up or shut up. You have a policy to advocate, or you don't. And then tell us how the President could rally the American people around your plan with ENTHUSIASM!
Siarlys,
My point was that Obama made a very stupid statement when he mentioned the red line and the game changer. He has boxed himself in. I don't want one American life sacrificed for the sake of Syria. We do, however, have a clash with Iran looming. That is where our focus should be. Of course, Iran is a player in Syria on the other side and that further complicates things. This could precipitate the showdown.
Doesn't sound like a policy statement to me Gary. Sounds like you are as indecisive as anyone. Obama shouldn't let "chemical weapons" be a pawn in choosing sides. Either we have a policy of suppressing any use of chemical weapons by anyone anywhere at anytime, period, or, we don't. He either needs to commit the country on that point, or make it clear he won't.
I have fairly strong reservations about military intervention, particularly as to ground forces (cruise missiles, no-fly zones, etc. might be OK), in Syria. Never know what we might end up with, might be better, might be worse. Elections do, however, have consequences, and Obama will do, or not do, whatever he wants in Syria.
As far as Gary taking "potshots at the president for doing nothing", I believe what he is doing is chastising him for, as is often the case, not doing what he says he will do, further enhancing his image as a weak leader.
In diplomatic terms, Obama's references to "game-changer" and "red lines" are fairly belligerent. They are in fact tantamount to a commitment to use military force if certain things happen. Although we do not know for sure, and possibly will never know for sure, it most certainly appears that the precipitating act(s) have occurred. I suspect that the UN "inspections" in Syria will, in typical UN fashion, end up with about the same amount of monkey-motion as the ones in Iraq.
Obama and his bunch have had, I believe, about a year since his statements to devise military plan(s), which I hope they did but which might not be the case. If they did, then in my view those operations, if we are going to in fact implement them, should already be underway. If military plans do not yet exist, that is further evidence of a lack of leadership and involvement.
A major part of Obama's problem(s) appears to be that he does not understand/accept that while it is possible to delegate authority, it is not possible to delegate responsibility.
@ elwood p suggins
Very nicely said. This is a very difficult situation for the POTUS, but I too believe that he shoots his mouth off an reveals his lack of experience, poor guidance and arrogance. Somehow, he feels situations will go away with time, such as Benghazi. He is in a corner with Syria and I believe this situation could have been avoided.
The most costly factor is the loss of civilian life, men, women and innocent children.
Squid
How would you have avoided this situation Squid?
I'll let Squid answer that, but my answer is easy. I would never have made those statements about red lines and game changers.
And then half the Republicans in Congress would be making speeches about Munich, the Sudetenland, and a little village on the Polish border.
Should those have been game-changers?
I'm not saying we SHOULD launch attacks on anyone in Syria. I'm saying political and military history is littered with dualities:
Should have acted, shouldn't have acted.
Should have moved forward on the double.
Should have waited until he knew what he was facing.
Second guessing is easy. Remember, loose lips sink ships.
OBAMA IS A PURE PUPPET OF THE BRITISH NEWSPAPER THE ECONOMIST ?
"THE ECONOMIST APPEALS TO OBAMA FOR ELIMINATION OF ASSAD
Apparently distressed over the British Parliament's decision not to participate in a limited, or otherwise, attack on Syria for alleged use on Aug. 21 of sarin gas by the Bashar al-Assad regime against the rebels and Syrian civilians, the Economist's latest, Aug. 31 issue, in its editorial, "Hit him hard," has appealed to President Obama to rain down missiles for a week on the dictator's command-and-control centers, including his palaces.
"From the Pentagon to Britain's parliament, plenty of realpolitikers argue that doing nothing is the only prudent course," the editorial said, and then pointed out that "doing nothing carries risks even bigger." Needling Obama's huge ego and his unstable state of mind, the editorial went on to egg Obama on to launch into yet another war by saying Assad had "after all stepped across Mr. Obama's 'red line' several times by using these weapons on a smaller scale—and found that Mr. Obama and his allies blinked." "An American threat, especially over WMD, must count for something; it is hard to see how Mr. Obama can eat his words without the superpower losing credibility with the likes of Iran and North Korea."
In conclusion, going through the motions of the usual British feigned "fair play," "playing cricket," and all that, the Economist said, "before the missiles are fired, Mr. Obama must give Mr. Assad one last chance; a clear ultimatum to hand over his chemical weapons entirely within a very short period. The time for inspections is over. If Mr. Assad gives in, then both he and his opponents will be deprived of such poisons—a victory for Mr. Obama."
What if Assad refuses that proposal? The editorial said, "he should be shown as little mercy as he has shown to the people he claims to govern. If an American missile then hits Mr. Assad himself, so be it. He and his henchmen have only themselves to blame." " http://larouchepac.com/node/27974
" In the end JACOB [ROTHSCHILD] decided to rename the Rothschild Investment Trust to RIT Ltd., but put management of its assets into the newly created J. Rothschild & Co. (stake in THE ECONOMIST newspaper, among other things)" https://wikispooks.com/ISGP/organisations/introduction/PEHI_Jacob_de_Rothschild_bio.htm
EVELYN DE ROTHSCHILD has been chairman of the newspaper THE ECONOMIST (1972–1989)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Robert_de_Rothschild
" LYNN FORESTER DE ROTHSCHILD: Wife of Sir EVELYN DE ROTHSCHILD and runs E.L. Rothschild, LLC with him. Director of THE ECONOMIST since 2002 "
http://wikispooks.com/ISGP/intro.htm
WHO IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ? OBAMA OR THE ECONOMIST ?
Post a Comment