Tuesday,
September 10, 2013
Syria.
Facing determined opposition to involvement in Syria, belatedly the
president decided to request congressional approval for any US
military actions. He lobbied mightily all through the Labor Day
weekend but has yet to use the power of the bully pulpit to convince
a generally skeptical American citizenry. To many the president
appears to be the modern day version of the little boy “who cried
wolf too often.” The president's cause was certainly not helped by
the rejection of British involvement by the House of Commons – an
ignominious defeat for Prime Minister Cameron.
Here the question
has to asked, why did the administration not take some sort of action
as more than 100,000 Syrians perished during Assad's conventional
weapons assault? Assuredly the use of chemical weapons (CW) is
morally reprehensible and violates international treaties. Now the
Congress wants assurances that there will be no “boots on the
ground” in Syria. (see comment below) By what possible means can
the international community be assured of the destruction and/or
securement of Syria's CW stockpiles if not by close inspection? Ever
since the secret 1916 Sikes-Picot agreement long-time Syria-watchers
have repeatedly attested to the multiplicity of the diverse ethnic
and religious groups in Syria and their long animosity for, and
distrust of, each other. Indeed, President Assad is comes from the
Alawhite sect, a minority group in Syria.
Which group(s)
is/are to be entrusted with the CW stockpiles? Further, how does the
international community verify their securement and continued safety?
Senator McCain even questioned the phrase, “boots on the ground.”
Did this mean actual combat boots or boots like those of our
non-combatant troops still in Iraq?
As
for the administration's calling for a limited strike, in a recent
column, columnist Kathleen Parker commented that “Waging a little
bit of war is like being a little bit pregnant. History and human
experience tell us that neither is possible, yet we seem bent on
believing it. Or, should I say, deceiving ourselves.” The entire
column is worth reading.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kathleen-parker-just-a-little-bit-of-war-against-syria/2013/09/06/80ae9f3a-1732-11e3-804b-d3a1a3a18f2c_story.html?hpid=z3
In this Monday's
column, George Will commented,
In
London exile in 1940, Charles de Gaulle decided, “It was up to me
to take responsibility for France” (“c’etait a moi d’assumer
la France ”). No U.S. president should assume he is, as de Gaulle
almost mystically did, the nation, or is solely responsible for it.
Remember this Tuesday when Barack
Obama defends his choice to attack Syria. [Will's
emphasis]
Will also cautions
that, “Skepticism
[regarding the various Syrian groups] is warranted, given the
prodigies of confusion in administration statements, including
historical amnesia.” He notes that CW weapons have been used more
than a few times since they were “outlawed” by the 1925 Geneva
Protocol. We are left wondering is there, in fact, a “vetted
opposition that can be trusted to
secure, but not use
these CW weapons?
Charles Krauthammer
compares Obama's muddled ambiguity with Israel's decisive four
unannounced air strikes into Syria.
Israel
had already announced that it
would not tolerate
Assad acquiring or transferring to Hezbollah advanced weaponry. No
grandiloquent speeches by the Israeli foreign minister. No leaked
target lists. Indeed, the Israelis didn’t acknowledge the strikes
even after they had carried them out. Unlike the American president,
they have no interest in basking in perceived toughness. They care
only about effect. They care about just one audience — the party to
be deterred, namely Assad and his allies.
Albert Einstein
recognized that “Nothing will end war unless the people themselves
refuse to go to war.”
Politico, September
10th: “Barack
Obama’s unsteady handling of the Syria crisis has been an
avert-your-gaze moment in the history of the modern presidency —
highlighting his unsettled views and unattractive options in a way
that has caused his enemies to cackle and supporters to cringe.”
Stay
tuned for the President's address to the nation. Not only are his
words being carefully phrased, incredibly, on Monday some White House
advisers continued to argue about which room he should give his
address.
2016.
In another column, after relating an amusing antidote about Ronald
Reagan's 1981 inauguration-day jitters, George Will continued,
“[Today] some
are so eager to be inaugurated in 2017 that the 2016 campaign has
begun 28 months before the 1.4 percent of Americans who live in
Iowa
and New
Hampshire
express themselves. It is, therefore, not too soon to get a head
start on being dismayed.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-clinton-christie-promise-2016-follies/2013/09/06/d440b3d6-1660-11e3-804b-d3a1a3a18f2c_story.html
He
then discusses the possible candidacies of Hillary Clinton and NJ
Governor Chris Christie. Folks, it's going to be a long, bumpy ride
to November 2016.
Vacation:
I will be “off” next week; leaving on 9/11 for a trip to PA for my
sister's 50th wedding anniversary. Back online on 9/24.
Now that I am leaving it is cooling off in Denver. Hope fall has
come to your house!
No comments:
Post a Comment