Obama would like everyone to believe that his decisions and actions to date have been part of a broader, coordinated and coherent plan on his part for a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Syria.
The truth, seemingly an alien construct in Obama’s nature, however is something altogether different than the fictional story he is trying to weave now – last evening he gave a speech laced with ironies, contradictions and inconsistencies throughout.
In reality Obama has fumbled and bungled along toward a resolution in the Middle East and at the 12th hour had the good fortune, at least superficially, to be given the means of extricating himself from a crisis with “no good options” in Syria that he in large measure helped to foment.
It is simply quite impossible for Obama to say to anyone “Ok, my notions about foreign policy have not worked well, and I’ve seriously screwed up. I have heard you. I gambled but realize now that Congress will not vote to authorize the use of force in Syria. I accept that and want you to know that I am going to set aside my personal political needs and goals and seek a diplomatic resolution for the benefit of all.”
Instead as prelude for his explanation, Obama spoke of the brutality of a regime that caused 100,000 to die in Syria’s civil war during the past 2 years. Yet, how odd in his introduction, he said he has resisted military intervention there “because we cannot resolve someone else’s civil war through force …” though apparently just a short time earlier we “should” and did do that in nearby Libya !
And, apparently there is sufficient distinction in Obama's mind between overt force and force applied through covert operations that no mention or disclosure about the Obama administration's arming and training of anti-Assad forces to topple Assad from power needs to be made.
Failing to note or mention any of the other previous 13 uses of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, Obama says the attack on August 21st that left more than 1400 dead profoundly changed his attitude –"The images from this massacre are sickening..." yet, none of the earlier atrocities committed by the Assad regime in which the 100,000 perished could cause Obama to speak out in the same manner or take military action against it. How disingenuous is it for Obama to serve up, “When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory.” or is it just another sound bite in a long string of political calculations ?
As justification now Obama said, "If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons." which, ironically is precisely what Obama enabled Assad to do in the 2 years leading up to the escalation with Sarin gas in the August 21st attack because Obama failed to act in any of the other instances in which Assad crossed Obama's "Red Line" ultimatum.
Obama also noted, "If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan, and Israel." , which is exactly what Syria and its allies have promised if Syia IS attacked by the Obama administration.
Obama also said, "And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction, and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran..." which again due to Obama's inaction, we witness Iran's ongoing intransigence and race to build both a nuclear weapon and a missile system to deliver it.
"I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use. ", asserted Obama.
This assertion is so wrong headed and naive on the part of Obama on so many levels there is not enough space or time to elaborate fully on all of them - but chiefly, Obama has already telegraphed too much information to an enemy about what, when and where and how our military would strike - giving Assad ample time to make adjustments to minimize any strike against him, necessitating the application of even more force.
Originally in the time line of the unfolding crisis Obama was insistent that this was only a "message" through use of a very limited, surgical strike, not regime change.
Military planners know that tactical, punitive responses are counterproductive when not tied to strategic goals - and Obama has none.
Also noteworthy is that the US is unwilling to deliver enough of a punitive response to actually deter Assad.
Now Obama has expanded the mission to "degrade" Assad's capabilities apparently in response to this obvious deficiency in his original plan. "The United States military doesn’t do pinpricks.", he responded; though that is precisely what he originally planned to do and argued for.
Obama wants it all ways, or at least in the manner most convenient for him at any moment in time or circumstance.
Someone needs to get through to Obama that the US military is not a message delivery service, either ! Or, as Charles Krauthammer said, if Obama wants to send a message he should send a text message; it's a lot cheaper and more effective than a 1 1/2 million dollar cruise missile!
A wider and deeper military response further raises suspicions about the Obama promises regarding "no boots on the ground" in Syria - which again military planners don't see as a credible promise at all.
Equally dubious are Obama's conclusions that all repercussions from a US military strike are manageable, "Other questions involve the dangers of retaliation. We don’t dismiss any threats, but the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military. Any other retaliation they might seek is in line with threats that we face every day. Neither Assad nor his allies have any interest in escalation that would lead to his demise. And our ally, Israel, can defend itself with overwhelming force, as well as the unshakeable support of the United States of America."
One "overwhelming" concern for many Americans, which Obama has chosen to ignore, or at least not address, is that escalation, whether Assad and his allies "want it" or not, that involves Israel will suck the US into a broader war fulfilling its commitment to Israel, as the entire Middle East erupts.
In an effort to allay fears that Al Qaeda will fill any authority vacuum left once Assad is removed from power Obama said, parsing the truth, "It’s true that some of Assad’s opponents are extremists. But Al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death. The majority of the Syrian people -- and the Syrian opposition we work with -- just want to live in peace, with dignity and freedom. And the day after any military action, we would redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism."
Those anti-Assad forces we've chosen to support in Syria are Al Qaeda operating under the name Al Nusra ! And just like the so-called freedom fighters we chose to support in Libya, who were Al Qaeda also, Al Nusra, when Assad is gone, can be expected to commit the same human rights atrocities they did in Libya after Qaddafi was toppled. Some observers point out that the Libyan "freedom fighters" committed more acts of terror than the Qaddafi regime ever did.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-supported-jabhat-al-nusra-caught-with-sarin-gas-inside-turkey/5337035
And Obama's statement begs the question why must any effort to achieve a political solution wait until the day after a military strike ?
It's clear that the earlier threats of military reprisal were not credible to anyone and didn't stop Assad from using chemical weapons in the first place - Obama, himself, said so, "Over the last two years, my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warning and negotiations -- but chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime.".
And yet, nearly in the same breath Obama tells us that we should believe that Assad will be receptive to a political solution immediately after the strike because just the threat of military reprisal has brought the Assad regime to its senses.
While it is likely that Putin has been more convinced that the US WOULD strike this time because Obama "painted himself into a corner" it is even more likely the Assad regime "coming to its senses" has more to do with Putin's ambitions and Russian influence than Assad fearing any of Obama's inept posturing or even his cruise missiles.
"However, over the last few days, we’ve seen some encouraging signs. In part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action, as well as constructive talks that I had with President Putin, the Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons. The Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons, and even said they’d join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use."
So in addition to wanting us to believe that the latest diplomatic developments by way of the Russians are the result of Obama's efforts and planning and authorship, he wants us to also believe all that Obama has to say about it, no matter how contradictory his statements are.
And this is what we can expect next according to Obama, "I have, therefore, asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. I’m sending Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin. I’ve spoken to the leaders of two of our closest allies, France and the United Kingdom, and we will work together in consultation with Russia and China to put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons, and to ultimately destroy them under international control. We’ll also give U.N. inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what happened on August 21st. And we will continue to rally support from allies from Europe to the Americas -- from Asia to the Middle East -- who agree on the need for action. "
This is the same Obama whose public position was that UN support was critical in relation to matters of international security, but with the realization both Russia and China would prevent Obama from having UN support, he decided to push ahead without it and said he had made the decision to strike Syria. No matter that to do so would violate the UN charter and the illegal action would cause the US to bear the stigma as an aggressor.
World opinion turned against Obama while waiting for the UN inspector's report. Previously, Obama tried to make his case in the press to disregard the UN investigation but was rebuffed by Russia, China and the British Parliament refusing to honor Cameron's pledge of military support from the UK for a reprisal strike.
Obama tried to make Congress a party to his decision after the fact, not because he believes the BS he's slung in his speech about "... our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress. And I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together. " as he's already in his first term demonstrated his willingness to circumvent the authority of Congress on several occasions.
Though now, he's finally come to understand his gamble in a bid for Congressional support will fail dramatically with all of its attendant implications to his remaining credibility; his real intent in soliciting Congress was ever only political - to make his opponents take shared responsibility for any decision to strike Syria or, to leave the Assad regime unpunished and thereby lay the groundwork to shift the responsibility for any repercussions, either way, from himself to others.
As evidence, we need look no further than Obama's recent comments in Sweden while en route to the St. Petersburg G20 leader's summit, when he declared that he, Obama, did not set the "Red Line" but that the US Congress and the World had done it.
Lastly, it is sad testimony because of Obama's incompetence in leadership that the US must await the next Russian dalliance in order to actualize any US foreign policy in Syria and prospectively going forward in the entire Middle East.
Throughout the entire mess Obama has been outmaneuvered by Putin and just as Assad claimed earlier on, Obama "lost" the battle over Syria before it had even begun.
The danger for America doesn't exist so much, thousands of miles away in a Middle Eastern desert, as much as it does comfortably ensconced at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
No comments:
Post a Comment