Please LIKE and SHARE to get the latest UPDATES

 

 

 

TEA WITH THE MAD HATTER

Musings on Politics, The Tea Party, and America's Rampant Electile Dysfunction

NOW ON SALE

AT AMAZON

and

BARNES AND NOBLE

 

 

 And don't forget to check out

Available as a Trade Paperback or e-Book at

 

Amazon

B&N

This form does not yet contain any fields.
    Technology, Ideology and One Ridiculous Idea...

     

    Search the Site
    Follow me on Twitter
    « Obama Cares vs. Obamacare | Main | No Pundit Intended »
    Tuesday
    Sep032013

    Syria-sly, Mr. President?

    Once again it’s time to take sides. To strike or not to strike? To risk war or to risk another untold number of civilian deaths? To support or not to support?  Forget baseball. This is our new national pastime. Line up. Pick a hat. Throw it in your favorite ring.

    I’ve been watching the emergent arguments for days now, the back and forth over what we should do “about Syria” (as if it’s some recalcitrant child that continues, night after night, to argue over bedtime).  Some of these arguments would contain a certain ironic humor (McCain and Gramm opposed until they weren’t; Sean Hannity sharing Ann Coulter’s opinions on the topic) if it all weren’t so heart-wrenching and frightening.

    In my mind the use of chemical weapons demands some action, a "proportional response," as Aaron Sorkin wrote in The American President. It’s a line the world wants not to be crossed, and the image of a nation striking out against its own citizens only amplifies the outrage. We all know that we’re stuck with these things—Pandora-like, they’re out of the box—and that this is not the first time such weapons have been used. But the sheer public scale and the way in which the weapons were deployed this time—by a country’s leadership against its own citizens—demands response. 

    The current waters, though, have become incredibly muddied, partly because of Bush-era history and partly because of Obama’s continued mushiness in foreign policy. The world, perhaps rightfully, is once-bitten and twice shy thanks to the revealed bastardizations that the Bush administration went through to “prove” its case for Iraq. As a result, both citizens and governments worldwide are starkly hesitant to back us in any Syrian endeavor; here at home the wounds are all too recent (some only days old), and across the pond our staunchest ally has backed away from backing us. And in yet another display of twisted irony, the one country that supports the U.S. is France (maybe now we can finally put all that “freedom fries” crap behind us).

    On top of the last hawkish legacy rides Obama’s unwavering wavering, a foreign policy that most resembles a pas de deux starring us and the rest of the world, one in which our president never seems to look down to see what he’s stepping in. When, back in August of 2012, Obama drew that red line for Syrian President Assad, he effectively committed us to action—except, apparently, he didn’t.  ABC News, in a recent article reminding us of Obama’s misstep, writes that “Obama’s warning in August 2012 that use of a ‘whole bunch’ of chemical weapons would cross a ‘red line,’ triggering ‘enormous consequences,’ went much further than aides had planned, several told the New York Times earlier this year.  Some reportedly wished Obama could have taken those words back.” (More irony: ABC also reminds us that the guy who said these things had recently won the Nobel Peace Prize!)

    But this isn’t a grade-school playground, Mr. President. You’re the leader of the free world. You don’t get to just “take it back.” Nor should you, as you seem wont to do, rely on Congress for this action. We’re not talking war here; we’re talking a “proportional response” and you’re the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. You don’t need Congress; there’s ample precedent from nearly every 20th century president before you. You don’t even need public opinion—you just need to do what needs doing. Perhaps you were wrong to put us in this position, but here we are: not only is our credibility at stake, but so is our role in enforcing these un-crossable lines. Chemical weaponry is one of them, and now it’s time to act.

    It’s what we need now. A proportional response. Not a show of strength or superiority, but a warning. Sometimes, when others in the world reveal themselves heinous, actions must be taken.

    PrintView Printer Friendly Version

    EmailEmail Article to Friend

    References (1)

    References allow you to track sources for this article, as well as articles that were written in response to this article.
    • Response
      Thank you for sharing your post, Michael. I ‘Like’ that you shared it with me. It, along with tonight’s Middle Ground blogtalk show, really got me thinking more about Syria and what to do. My views differ from yours.

    Reader Comments (4)

    My response would be to blow Assad's military back to the stone age and give the opposition a fighting chance. We could do that fairly cheaply without ever putting boots on the ground. I would do it now, instead of begging our totally dysfunctional Congress for some kind of approval. The longer we wait, the more prepared Assad will be. I voted for Obama both times but I've come to realize he's great at giving speeches, but pretty poor at actually doing the job. Very disappointed in that man.

    September 3, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterJim Barnhart

    Jim: my feeling is that's too much involvement in a civil war. The goal IMO is not regime change, but a very specific message that chemical weapons will not be tolerated. It's a message not merely to Assad, but to the world. I agree with you wholeheartedly on Obama's poor record at doing jobs like these....

    M.

    September 3, 2013 | Registered CommenterMichael Charney

    It is difficult for me to imagine what a "proportional response" would look like and how it could possibly sway Assad, unless we kill him. The "proportional response" that is in keeping with international law would be to arrest Assad, try him and execute/jail him.

    But, nothing short of intentionally assassinating him will have the desired effect.

    September 3, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterEric O

    Hey, Michael. Thanks for posting your article on my FB page. I posted my thoughts there and as a link to my blog site in the hopes of sparking discussion with your followers. I hope I did it correctly - my first attempt to do this.

    September 4, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterGreg

    PostPost a New Comment

    Enter your information below to add a new comment.

    My response is on my own website »
    Author Email (optional):
    Author URL (optional):
    Post:
     
    Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>