It's been quite sometime since I last posted I know, but I have returned from hiatus and will attempt to get back to at least a 2 or 3 a week posting schedule again (I hope). Now, on to the subject of the day...
It's been about 4 years since Barrack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Price "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". Strangely enough this was awarded to him after being in office for less than a year. Besides giving a few high profile speeches and trying to pin all of our nation's previous problems on his predecessor, there really wasn't anything in particular that the President did to significantly strengthen anything. I will admit that President Bush was very much in the "go it alone" camp of acting on the world stage, but at least you knew where he stood. What President Obama has done, particularly over the last couple of months, on the international stage is make apologies, set red lines then back off of them, then again make bold threats after red lines were again crossed, then another day or so later back off and throw the ball to Congress.
Now I agree that the U.S. can't risk American lives just for our President to save face or for our country to look strong. While I do think it is important for the richest nation in the world to appear strong, that is a debate for another time. The argument should primarily be about sending a clear signal to individuals like Assad that use of chemical and biological weapons will not be accepted under any conditions. I think many do agree with that argument, but I think many others are trying to shift this debate to something along the lines of my former statements. What is appalling is that when we have clear, undeniable proof of chemical weapon use on innocent civilians there is no one the world over willing to take action. Yes people are shell shocked after going to war in Iraq over fairly bogus intel., but the evidence was questionable from the outside. Few deny the evidence being portrayed recently, but many want to resign these mostly innocent civilians to a terrible fate nonetheless.
Whatever the future holds in the region we cannot have a Commander in Chief that can't seem to make up his mind on the international stage. Yes coalition building and trying to build consensus is important, but if that's the course of action the President wants to take then say that from the outset and stick to it. Come up with an official red line with Congressional support and do your best to build a coalition of partners before taking action, but be ready to act alone when others would shirk their duty. Publicly, some of our closest allies are also our biggest critics, yet you can bet behind closed doors they're hoping the U.S. will take action so they don't have to. We should definitely exert some pressure on these two-faced allies of ours. Should the U.S. pull itself into another long, protracted engagement requiring ground troops? Certainly not. Should we impose a no-fly zone over Syria? Maybe. Should we blow up some chemical weapons depots and factories to send a signal that will be seen from Iran to North Korea that this behavior will not be tolerated? My answer is a resounding YES.
No comments:
Post a Comment