President Barack Obama is in what will probably be the toughest situation of his presidency, and how he reacts will either make or break his place in history. He may end up making an unpopular decision that history will regard as a wise decision, or vice versa.
From the title, I am of course discussing the situation in Syria. As of this moment, President Obama is pondering on bombing Syria as punishment for using poison gas on its own people. President Assad, whom many of the Syrians have been rebelling against for the past two years, has been tyrannical, and is fighting these rebels to preserve his place in power. The rebels were winning at first, but Assad has struck back, using his military to strike back at the rebels, reclaiming much of the territory that the rebels captured.
There are those around the globe who support these rebels, hoping that they would succeed in this endeavor. Some of them hoping that the U.S. will come in, aid these rebels, and drive out Assad, just like they did Saddam Hussain in Iraq, with mixed results.
Obama has tried very hard to stay out of this mess, and for good reason. First, the American people are weary from being in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 (2003 through 2011 in Iraq), costing taxpayers money, not to mention human lives, and would now very much like to concentrate on fixing their own economy. Obama, during his first presidential campaign, has vowed to get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan and not to get us into any more wars.
Obama is now in a different situation. When one becomes president, he or she finds that being in office is not so easy as running for it, and it is not so easy to keep one’s promises to change things. He has a lot of outside forces to deal with, starting with Congress, and it gets even tougher when that particular Congress is determined to see you fail, at all costs, and that is the situation that Obama is in today.
Obama tolerated the Syrian civil war, and he tried, with success, to stay out of it. He did warn Assad that if he used chemical weapons, the U.S. will be forced to take military action. That is the red line the Obama drew.
The Red Line has been crossed. Masses of people were killed, and there is a suspicion that chemical weapons, mainly Sarin gas, was used. Assad denies it, and it has been said that the rebels themselves did it, and others say that there is no proof the these weapons were used. The U.N. was in, examined the bodies, and as of this moment, they just left the country.
As stated, many say that there is no proof that chemical weapons were used. Syria, however does have them, and the manufacturing and storage facilities for them. If they were not used, how did all these people die? What was used to kill them? How do you explain this mass killing, with all bodies not having a mark on them, if Sarin gas wasn’t used? If they were used, should we go in? Perhaps the Air Force should go in and destroy these plants and storage facilities.
It was during the first World War that poison gas was used on both sides, and the outcome was so horrible, that at the Geneva Convention, held in 1925, all sides agreed that chemical weapons will not be used in any future war.
Well, should it be found that Assad did use them, and evidence points out that they did; so what do we do? Should we bomb Syria as a message to Assad not to use them again? Should Obama decide to do so, he, and the U.S., will be condemned for being war mongers and bullies.
What if Obama decides NOT to go into Syria? Will he be condemned by the rest of the world for looking the other way and doing nothing while masses of innocent people are being killed? Will he be compared to those who stood by during the Hitler regime while six million people went to the gas chambers? There is a Syrian family that lives in my vicinity that thinks just that of Obama, and wants the U.S. military to go in and bomb Syria for reasons I have already stated. There is also the danger that other dictators that possess chemical weapons will use them with impunity, both on their own people and on other countries, and this act of inaction will be what triggers it off; i.e. chemical weapons will become conventional weapons.
Suppose Obama does decide to go in and bomb Syria. Will the world condemn the U.S. for being war mongers and bullies, bombing innocent people? Will we lose what’s left of our credibility, especially after invading Iraq? If Assad killed 100,000 Syrians by conventional means, why should we go in when these weapons only killed about 1400 Syrians, with 400 of them being children? Does that make sense?
Either way, Obama will be condemned. He is in a very tough situation. What can be accredited to him now is deciding to obtain the approval of Congress before venturing out there. Whatever is decided, Obama will be judged by the world in a very harsh manner. It will be up to history to come up with the final verdict.
My own opinion on all this is: One, there is no way we can fix the situation in Syria and make peace there, no matter what we do. Only the Syrian people can do that. If we go in, it will be worse for everybody, especially us. Two, wars cost money, and after Iraq and Afghanistan, we cannot afford to get involved in anyone else’s problems, problems that do not concern us. Three, the Syrian people themselves have stated that, in spite of what is happening, they do not want us coming in there at all. They want to solve their own problems, and keep the rest of the world at bay. Four, that situation is so complex, we don’t know whose side to be on; we just may end up choosing the wrong side, something that we are very good at doing. Last, if we are going to attack Syria, destroy the chemical weapons plants and storage facilities, and then get out. That, at least, will discourage other dictators from using theirs.
It is my own conclusion that we stay out, completely. Since we are becoming more energy independent, we should try and stay out of all the Middle East and its affairs, and let them settle it themselves, if they have the ability to do so. They don’t want us in there anyway, and no one else can do it for them, especially the U.S.
No comments:
Post a Comment