Apparently President Obama doesn’t think it’s suicidal enough for the U.S. to refuse for five years to directly confront Iran, the largest state sponsor of terror, over its development of nuclear weapons. It’s not enough for Obama to decline to at least lend vocal support to the masses in Tehran protesting the crooked presidential election of 2009.
It’s not enough for Obama to fail to confront Iran indirectly by at least addressing her ally and proxy Syria for the two years during which President Bashar al-Assad slaughtered hundreds of Syrian rebel fighters and civilians.
It’s not enough that when Obama finally decided to do something about Syria, he chose to aid the rebel fighters after they had been infiltrated by al-Qaeda operatives, who stepped in to fill a vacuum in fighting strength for the increasingly desperate rebels. Now the arms and vehicles Obama recently started sending rebels will surely find their way into al-Qaeda’s hands.
No, all this isn’t enough for Obama, because it doesn’t weaken the U.S.’s standing in the world sufficiently, and it fails to fully embody his strategy of “leading from behind.” Now we have to watch our foreign policy being written by the communist, anti-American leader of Russia.
Here’s how we got to this point: After proposing doing something about Syria’s weapons of mass destruction, but failing to make an elementary case for taking action, Obama watched public, Congressional, and international support for strikes hover at dismally low levels, and decided he needed a graceful way to skirt his own demands for an attack.
Secretary of State John Kerry accidentally made the casual suggestion that the West might avoid military action if al-Assad agreed to submit his chemical weapons to international supervision. Russian President Vladimir Putin, who opposes U.S. military action in Syria, jumped on the idea, gave it his endorsement, pledged Russia’s cooperation, but warned that his acceptance was conditional on the U.S. abandoning all plans to attack Syria.
And thus was formed Obama’s weasel way out of his own self-created conundrum. At the end of his Syria speech Tuesday night, Obama announced that the potentially embarrassing upcoming Congressional votes on military strikes would be postponed indefinitely so a diplomatic solution could be worked out.
And all this for the low price of capitulating to Russia and letting Putin dictate the terms of our containment strategy toward rogue Middle Eastern regimes such as Syria’s. That tradeoff should work out about as well as trusting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to let the United Nations inspect his weapons production facilities.
Thus Obama has accomplished two goals—squirming out of his prior, unpopular ultimatum and diminishing the U.S.’s status to the point that Putin is now lecturing the U.S. in the New York Times about its unhealthy addiction to the concept of American exceptionalism. (Obama of course believes in American exceptionalism, just as he suspects that the Russians believe in Russian exceptionalism and the Syrians believe in Syrian exceptionalism.)
Obama isn’t content to give Iran a pass on developing nuclear weapons, Syria a pass on slaughtering civilians for two years, and the rebels a pass on demanding arms from the U.S. while allying with al-Qaeda. He is now happily siding with an al-Assad ally to figure out how to neutralize… al-Assad. What could possibly go wrong?
Putin also recently reopened his offer to send Iran surface-to-air missile systems and help build them another nuclear reactor. We are officially letting our foreign policy be written by a material supporter of two of the largest state sponsors of terror on earth.
To be sure, even when Obama proposed striking Syria, he didn’t want to do it in a way that would actually achieve results helpful to the U.S. In the earlier part of his speech on Tuesday, Obama hedged all bets, announcing to Syria the limits of his proposed attack, the campaign’s narrow scope, and the U.S.’s circumscribed moral culpability for improving the country’s situation.
Thus, Obama contrasted his proposed strikes with other recent U.S. conflicts: “I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo.” He also insisted that the U.S. should not remove al-Assad because “we learned from Iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next.”
But at least Obama seemed resolute in his desire to do something that he believed, however dubiously, would be effective.
But now he’s concluded that our resolve is moot, because some anti-American ally of al-Assad’s has a more effective idea for making sure al-Assad doesn’t misbehave again.
Why is striking Syria off the table only because Syrian ally Putin opposes it? Why is Obama sending arms to rebels who will funnel them to our mortal enemy al-Qaeda? Why didn’t Obama do something about Syria for two years while the conflict was manageable? Why didn’t Obama support the Iranian protestors in 2009?
The answer is the same: Liberals don’t really oppose tyrannical governments, so long as they hate the U.S. and make us look bad; and they don’t really support our allies, not if they favor liberty-promoting, limited constitutional governments.
The left doesn’t support limited constitutional government or liberty at home. Why would we expect them to support these ideals abroad?
The most positive thing you can say about liberals’ foreign policy is that they don’t wish any worse on the rest of the world than they do on the U.S.
- Putin jabs U.S., Obama in op-ed, says Syria strike would be ‘act of aggression’ (teebreezzy.wordpress.com)
- Putin warns of ‘new wave of terrorism’ (vineoflifenews.com)
- Obama’s Syria Pause Only Delaying the Inevitable – Bloomberg (bloomberg.com)
- CIA Begins Weapons Delivery To Al Qaeda-Linked Syrian Rebels (patdollard.com)
- Diplomatic efforts intensify on corralling Syrian chemical arms – Reuters (reuters.com)