Love or hate him, President Obama is a smart man. In the last 5 1/2 years he has managed to keep the US out of any new major conflicts. (For the sake of argument we will leave Yemen, Pakistan, and Libya out of picture as there is a line that has been drawn as to whether we have boots on the ground or not.)
In one Memorial Day Speech in 2012 the President was quoted as saying: "I can promise you I will never do so unless it is absolutely necessary and that when we do, we must give our troops a clear mission and the full support of a grateful nation." For me, "the full support of a grateful nation" is the key. Do you honestly believe he is not aware that the populace of this nation is against action in Syria? He knows it would be political suicide and effectively making the remaining 2 years of his presidency a wash. He is not that stupid!!
Why is he asking for permission from Congress to launch a strike on Syria unless he knew beyond a doubt he could get it? In actuality he does not need their permission for a limited strike, so why ask? Although he would be treading on shaky ground, according to some pundits, despite the precedents set by Dwight Eisenhower when he sent Marines into Lebanon; John F. Kennedy with the blockaded of Cuba; Ronald Reagan who sent troops into Grenada and attacked Libya; and Bill Clinton who bombed Iraq (1993 and 1998), Bosnia, Afghanistan, Sudan and Kosovo.
The president knows this, so what so why does it appear that he wants this "limited" actions so badly? The more I read and the more I try to understand foreign diplomacy, I have come to the conclusion that he does not want this action. This is were the game of chess comes to play.
Rep. Peter King (R-L.I.): If Obama fails to back up his own words about the use of chemical weapons in Syria, he'll damage his personal reputation. In so doing, he’ll do long-term damage to the office of the President of the United States.
Can any coherence be found in this? A charitable interpretation might be that Mr. Obama wishes to avoid immediate U.S. intervention but wants to pressure Moscow into changing its position by letting it be known that the alternative is greater U.S. support for the rebels. If so, Mr. Obama is being too clever. His weak and legalistic words about the need to verify a “chain of custody” on any chemical-weapons use and his declaration that even a hard confirmation would lead only to a “rethink [of] the range of options” simply invite further chemical attacks.
As the United States prepares to begin sending direct military aid to rebels in Syria, Republican lawmakers criticized the White House for failing to act sooner and urged action to prevent a "blow up" among the war-torn country's neighbors.
"The whole region is about to blow up," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham on NBC's Meet the Press, citing the potential effects of Syria's instability on Jordan, Egypt and Israel. "And our foreign policy to me -- I don't understand it. Whatever it is is not working."
Well boys and girls of the GOP you can't have it both ways, he drew the "red line" and is now willing to act to protect the reputation of the great American war machine, the defender of the world. Now you have the audacity to say he is overstepping his powers. So in essence President Obama had to do something.
The first move was whether to play the game to a draw or go for the win. Which pawn to move first or should he move a knight? President Obama chose wisely, the British Parliament was the first pawn moved when Parliament voted no to a joint action against Assad. (The UN is also against the use of military force.) The next move was putting any US participation in the hands of our do-nothing Congress with no chance they would give him the approval he needed.
Think of it this way, the goal of the Republicans since day one of President Obama's administration has been to make him a one term President built on obstruction. If Obama suggested it, no matter what the issue the answer was and is always no. That mindset has continued into the President's second term, although they appear to be more desperate in their attempts to reek havoc and chaos at our expense.
So if the President wanted to use military force why is he pandering to these bozos? Without a shot fired, and playing a masterful game without risking his queen, Congress now takes any and all responsibility for lack of action on the part of the US. More importantly he has shifted some of the responsibility of a diplomatic resolution onto the world stage, enter Russia. But ultimately what he has accomplished, he has managed to make the Republicans come out as anti-war and has destroyed the Bush Doctrine. The days of unilateral warfare is gone, the military industrial complex is destroyed.
What we have is an American President suggesting a course of action, by allowing an elected body of officials to decide whether or not that action comes to fruition. This is different from the Bush years and also conveniently destroys the right’s talking point about Dictator Obama. It also weakens the GOP, as Congress will not have the ability to once again play games. It will have to accept reasonable offers from the President in regards to domestic policy or be blamed for damage to our nation.
Throughout all this gamesmanship, we have no war., the US maintains its status as a strong world leader, and pressure is put on world leaders (the UN) to take other actions. All accomplished without our military taking any action. Checkmate!!
Game over!!
No comments:
Post a Comment