Can President Obama sell a Syrian airstrike to America?
By Roger Caldwell
Human Rights Watch in 2010 referred to Syrian’s human rights record as “among the worst in the world.” It makes uncommon sense for America to get involved in a conflict that will suck the country dry with money, re-sources, and our credibility around the world. The country has been fighting internal and external battles since 1980 and 100,000 of its citizens have been injured and killed.
The Syrian crisis has become urgent in the last three weeks, when it has been alleged on August 21, that 1,400 people were gassed with a sarin gas attack. At this point, it is only speculated that the government was responsible for this attack, because the videos are undocumented and they cannot be trusted. Since early 2013, the media has documented evidence that the government has used tanks and airstrikes against its people, and our president has remained silent, refusing to take any action.
“I was elected to end wars, not start them. I’ve spent the last 41/2 years doing everything I can to reduce our reliance on military power as a means of meeting our international obligations and protecting the American people. But what I also know is that there are times where we have to make hard choices if we’re gonna stand up for things that we care about. And I believe that this is one of those times,” says President Obama.
All around the country citizens are protesting and praying that the president comes to his senses and continues to keep working on a political solution to the crisis. At this point, the president is fighting an uphill battle with Congress to get authorization for a U.S.-led military strike on Syria.
This situation reminds me of Ex-President Bush when he said his reports had undisputable evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. After spending billions of dollars and years of fighting a guerilla soldier, who is one day our friend and the next day our enemy, we finally decided to go home. It was a historical blunder, and now it appears our president is getting ready to make another blunder.
On Tuesday evening September 10, President Obama has decided to use his oratorical gifts and sell the country a line of foolishness on why we must go to war. For some reason our presidents don’t consider dropping bombs on a country war. The president is calling his action a”limited proportional attack with manageable risk.”
To our president this makes sense, but our leaders never think if the shoe were on the other foot. Would it be okay for another country to decide to call a “limited proportional attack with manageable risk,” on America? Everyone knows that it would be a third world war, but using a tiny country like Syria, it’s a good strategy to drop bombs on its citizens.
There is a lose screw in American leadership and everyone is engaged in an artificial fabricated crisis that will not be important in two weeks. The media is spending all their time on a government created crisis that has nothing to do with the safety of the country. There are times when the military decides to flex its muscles and prove that we are not impotent.
It would appear that our president would have learned from President Bush, but I guess he is no smarter on certain things. When the military and the American government want to make a point, they usually bomb the country and then tell the citizens.
It will be interesting to see if the president on Tuesday can make a case for the airstrikes. I don’t believe he can fool the American people this time, and the president will lose his case.