I'm sure by now mostly everyone has heard of the current situation going on in Syria. If not, then the short updated version is that Syria has used chemical weapons on its own people, and now the President of our police-state, Obama, is contemplating whether or not the US should lead the world on an attack against Syria. I say Obama is contemplating, but it is blatantly obvious what his intentions are. He was just in Sweden stating that "the international community cannot be silent." He clearly wants to lead a strike into Syria.
What baffles me is that Obama has asked Congress to vote on whether or not we should send troops into Syria. It has already been established that Obama does not need permission to send our troops there, so why is he seeking "permission"? It seems unlikely to me that Obama will just drop this issue if Congress votes "no" on this issue. It will definitely make his decision easier if Congress votes "yes" on this issue. Obama has nothing to lose from a political standpoint; meaning that if Congress votes no, and Obama still decides to send the troops in, there will be no political ramifications from his decision.
We have seen a wide array of support and opposition from the members of Congress. Colin Powell famously wrote in his biography: “War should be the politics of last resort. And when we go to war, we should have a purpose that our people understand and support.” An issue that many people have with this issue is that the US was not attacked by Syria, and they are not a serious threat to our people or country. Senator Rand Paul is one of the lead politician's leading the opposition side. He has stated: "The U.S. should not fight a war to save face. I will not vote to send young men and women to sacrifice life and limb for stalemate. I will not vote to send our nation’s best and brightest to fight for anything less than victory. If American interests are at stake, then our goal should not be stalemate." I believe many people share this same belief. If Syria does not care about its people and has no problem using chemical weapons against them, it will be unimaginable what they will do to US troops. This is not our war, and there is no clear end game if we do decide to go into this hostile territory. What are the ramifications if we do invade? How will Iran react? There are many negative outcomes that occur from the US invading. I agree with Rand Paul and the other people in opposing this attack.
Brigan your comment about our police state cracked me up. Reading this now a few weeks later sheds more light on to your post. My take on all the pandering by Obama was that he really does not want to go into Syria, that is why he punted it to the Congress to ask for permission, he knew full well that Congress would not send in troops - especially after Iraq. Obama used the Media to try and appear as a strong, tough leader when he is not. This was a clear case of Obama trying to use his sheep, I mean the main stream media, to show that he is a tough decisive leader, but it actually failed. There was too much metaphors, red lines and indecisiveness to show him as anything other than weak in the eyes of the world.
ReplyDelete