President Obama’s recent speech on Syria was an exercise in circumlocution, covering all political bases and signifying nothing. The speech went every which way.
Syria has become dilemma and dramatically calls attention to the unfocused, misguided, unrealistic and undisciplined foreign policy in which this has engaged for some five years now. This is especially significant in a region as volatile and dangerous as the Middle East
The dilemma is really rather simple. Should the United States become involved in an ongoing civil war being masterminded by an unstable despot of the most brutal, sadistic, and power driven nature. He has even used poison gas on his own countrymen; the use of such gas is banned by an international treaty in ratified in 1973.
Yet, in reviewing the tragic situation in Syria, one must ask, what are the vital national interests of the United States? The President and his Secretary of State have not presented facts which spell out the vital national interests, which remain vague. Is it imperative for the United States to engage in another conflict in the Middle East?
Yet, by hesitation, and inaction the United States and especially our commander and Chief sent all the wrong signals to the rest of the world, including the few allies we may have left. Look at the significant negative vote of the British parliament. That vote was an astonishing slap at American policy and its leadership. It appears the United States no longer believes the admonishment of President Theodore Roosevelt, that we “speak softly but carry a big stick.” Our stick is broken and our voice is but a whisper.
This week America noted the 2001 terrorist’s attacks on the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon and the field, in Pennsylvania, where American heroes ended the flight of another hijacked plane aimed to destroy the Capitol of the United States. We also noted the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, where four Americans, including the Ambassador were so brutally murdered. Only recently has the current administration admitted that Bengasi was indeed a terrorist attack, and the “war on terror” has returned to the lexicon in the White House.
Even with Ben laden dead, his believers and followers will continue the mission to kill Americans. How long will it take for our government to stop the linguistic gymnastics and state the facts to which the American Congress and the people are entitled?
Then there is Russian President Putin. How dare he address a letter to the American people, via the New York Times, in which he questions the exceptionalism of the United States and attempts to dictate terms of any possible intervention in Syria, The diplomatic course President Obama has accepted will lead to more chaos, deaths and delay, as the Russians seek to increase their influence in the Middle East region.
Rather than making a decision President calls on the Congress to debate the Syrian issue, chooses to hold talks with the Russians and wastes American money moving naval ships around the world to give an impression of our military power.. Confusing our military and affecting their moral. Leading from behind does not work.
John Greenleaf Whittier wrote, “Of all the sad words of lounge or pen, these are the saddest, it might have been”. What would have been if the Obama administration had taken decisive action made a decision and stuck by it on a reasonable, but action oriented policy on Syria?
It is shameful that the United States looks weak, indecisive, by conducting foreign policy which appears to go every which way.
James Nick says
Editor,
Mr Hall’s editorial is as muddled as his thinking is about Syria. Talk about circumlocution and trying to cover all the bases, in all the flak he sends up it almost impossible to tell where Mr Hall nets out. From Syria to Benghazi to 9/11, his editorial is a random mash-up of conservative anti-Obama broadsides. The only thing missing is a reference to the other favorite conservative piñatas: the IRS “scandal” and Obamacare.
Mr Hall takes President Obama to task for failing to take decisive action in Syria with a “reasonable, action-oriented” “Big Stick” Syrian policy. So let’s review the facts so far. Thanks to Bush, Jr’s fraudulent basis for war in Iraq the world can no longer trust US intelligence on, well, anything, hence the vote by the British Parliament and a reluctance by the rest of the world to engage. In this case, though, it’s likely that Assad did indeed use his chemical weapons. President Obama justifiably outraged at the breach of international norms and conventions, threatened a military strike as a warning. Like it or not, and regardless of whatever side of the political divide you are on, the threat indisputably changed the Syrian dynamic. Syria now admits to having chemical weapons and Russia, which, prior to President Obama’s threat, had thwarted any and all attempts to rein in Assad, did a 180 degree pivot. Now Russia has taken responsibility for keeping their ally from using chemical weapons again and, hopefully, will engineer their removal and destruction.
Isn’t that the goal? Isn’t that what is both morally and politically best? Moving forward from this point will no doubt be messy and, at times, unsatisfying but if chemical weapons disarmament comes to pass in Syria, history will show that it was President Obama who made the first move. As for Vladimir Putin, I heard one commentator remark something to the effect that we [the US] should be actively working to ensure Putin gets a Nobel Peace Prize if he succeeds in containing or ridding Syria of chemical weapons. It would be a win-win.
But these days our conservatives don’t do win-win. They don’t do nuance, ambiguity, and adaptability. Republicans are more into black-and-white, blunt force trauma politics. There are the Republicans that are licking their chops at the chance to diminish the President internationally as they seek to do domestically. Then there’s the John-McCain-bring-‘em-on school of thought that if someone wins – someone else must lose. This crowd would rather see the President launch a war with unwavering, single-minded, self-assurance even in the face of rapidly changing realities on the ground than appear weak and indecisive. But consider the Cuban Missile Crisis. It also involved weapons of mass destruction, red lines, threats of military action, secret deals, and ad hoc diplomacy. If the Cuban Missile Crisis unfolded in the present-day hyperpolarized partisan atmosphere and under the glare of 24/7 cable TV, talk radio, and internet coverage you can be sure that Mr Hall would be criticizing it just as he is doing with President Obama’s handling of the Syrian situation.
But Mr Hall does actually get to the essential questions. He asks, but never answers, whether Syria is of any “vital national interests of the United States” and then wonders if it is “imperative for the United States to engage in another conflict in the Middle East”. In my opinion, the answer is decidedly, no. We have already lost too much treasure and spilled too much blood in the sectarian cesspool of the Middle East for no discernible gain. And as in all our previous interventions, there is no win to be had in Syria. Both sides are reprehensible. You can go to the bank if you bet that neither side will be our friend and democratic partner on the other side of the hostilities.
Stephan Sonn says
Editor,
This is a stunning analysis of the mind set that would run this country again.