By Arthur Piccolo
News Americas, NEW YORK, NY, Fri. Sept. 6, 2013: It’s all too easy to criticize Barack Obama about Syria.
That is the point. Syria is the latest example of a failed Presidency.
There are no good solutions to the Syrian mess. But we do know what the worst is. Obama getting the United States directly involved without widespread American support, without any clear goals, and with most of the rest of the world sitting on the sidelines.
Which brings us back to Saudi Arabia again! It is the decadent family that rules over that nation, that Barack Obama calls our ally who is the cheer leader for America going to war in Syria. Their real interest in the conflict tells us all we need to know.
Syria represents a savage Muslim conflict among two major sects for control in the Middle East. There is no way for the U.S. to win in such a conflict. Yes Assad is a brutal dictator but the only real difference between him and the Saud family is that they represent different Muslims sects in never ending conflict, and the Saud family has been far more effective at repressing their own people and avoiding a civil war.
Which brings up to U.S. Congressman Alan Grayson of Florida and the current debate in Congress over the resolution Obama wants to begin bombing Syria.
Grayson is articulating a view shared by many in Congress and throughout the United States and beyond that Obama has not made a credible case for us getting involved militarily in the Middle East again specifically in Syria.
Those arguments can be summed up as: 1) no attack on the U.S., 2) no understanding of potential consequences, 3) make a bad situation worse, 4) international community opposed, 5) vital interests here in U.S. are priority, 6) rebels in Syria have not called for U.S. military action in Syria, 7) this looks like Vietnam and Iraq all over again.
Add to this Obama and his Secretaries of State and Defense have made various confusing and contradictory statements in recent days, and the resolution Obama is proposing has changed and is also ambiguous as to what it allows and does not.
During last year’s campaign, Obama thought it was politically smart to make his “red line” statement about Syria, which in fact had no logic to it. Whether Assad uses a poison gas or has his military drop bombs on the houses of innocent Syrians is an atrocity. Obama stood by while over 100,000 Syrians have been killed and up to 2 million are now refuges forced to flee Syria, and live under horrible conditions and hopelessness.
What really changed last week? Nothing of substance! Tragically yet another 1000+ non-combatants were likely slaughtered by Assad’s goons using sarin. The dead are dead!
The reason the U.S. has not intervened is that there are no good outcomes in doing so. Nothing has changed as a result of the latest atrocities. And get this – nothing Obama is proposing is going to do anything to lessen the violence. So where does that leave Obama? Worse where does it leave America and Syria?
Here is where the Vietnam and Iraq comparisons become vital. So either Obama is lying to us and he intends a truly massive bombing operation meant to cripple Assad’s side or overthrow him and open up the gates of Hell and have all kinds of crazies fighting each other for power in Syria.
Or he orders a very surgical attack that has no practical impact. Does Obama stop there and the world sees the attack as meaningless or does he then increase the bombings and missile attacks because he is being called “weak?”
I have not even included so far the further damage to American credibility in the region, giving millions there who are already disdainful of the United States, even more reason to view us as an imperialist power set on controlling the Middle East forever.
And what about those 2 million refuges? Besides the fact U.S. attacks will likely result in even more Syrians fleeing to these pathetic camps just outside of Syria how about Obama taking the hundreds of millions of dollars maybe a billion or more (who knows they never tell us the costs) and use those funds to ease the suffering of the refugees.
The overall point here is there are powerful reasons why the majority of Americans and most of the world are against an American attack on Syria, and why a weak President is being bullied into such action by militarists here and the Saudis and their supporters.
The terrible situation in Syria is a reflection of the chaos in that region that the U.S. cannot master, and which has only been worsened over many decades by American oil “diplomacy” in the Middle East, and regime changes the U.S. imposed. Well the U.S. is no longer dependent on that oil as it was in the past, and so our lack of policies toward the Middle East – other than repeated use of force – makes even less sense than before.
But what about Iran???
The most convoluted argument Obama and his stand-ins are offering for bombing Syria is that it will send a message to Iran. What message is that? That they had better speed up their nuclear program so that they have a powerful deterrent to the U.S. bombing them. Yet Obama uses Iran as a “reason” to bomb Syria??
Yes President Barack Obama has a problem; in fact so many of them.
What most of us know for sure he is not going to solve any of them bombing Syria now!
Barack Obama does not need, and we don’t need another one of his failures.
About The Writer: Arthur Piccolo is a professional writer and commentator and often writes about Latin America for New Americas.