Friday, September 13, 2013

Obama Our Puppet in Chief

I don’t pay much attention to the news and politics anymore. It is extremely depressing. More often I do not know whether to laugh or cry. Syria is certainly no laughing matter, but the U.S. handling of the situation is really a political joke.

Does anyone see the irony? Democrats are pushing for war in Syria and Republicans want to stay out of the situation all together. This is just the opposite of Iraq, but let’s be clear Congress approved war in a bipartisan vote to intervene in Iraq. As a laissez-faire conservative or libertarian my views remain consistent – government interference in both domestic and foreign policy should be limited. There are just too many unknowns when we get involved in foreign conflicts and it usually comes back to haunt us in the long term. Most recently, we armed Libya opposition forces to overthrow Qaddafi. Then it was determined the same weapons used to arm the opposition forces were used by terrorists to target Westerners in the region including the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi. We have seen this time and time again throughout history. Afghanistan Taliban terrorists are using the same weapons the US gave them to fight the Soviets in the 80s against our troops today. Besides, in Syria, we really do not have a clear understanding of the opposition forces intentions. Many seem to have ties to terrorists and what may happen is that the new Syria government is worse than the present one. This, in itself, should make anyone hesitant to support the opposition forces and to arm them.

Another issue I do not understand is why is it we want to intervene only because the Syria government used chemical weapons. I mean, what difference does it make how the Syria government is committing genocide? So are we saying it is acceptable to cut the heads off innocent women and children so long as no chemical weapons are used? This makes no sense to me. Genocide is genocide and is happening around the globe, not just in Syria.

Another thing which makes no sense is Kerry’s claim that the US effort would be “unbelievably small” and no ground troops. Well then, how can anyone be sure the chemical weapons are completely removed or destroyed? And even if the chemical weapons are completely destroyed, does this mean the genocide will stop? No, it will continue, so what is the point? If a military intervention cannot stop the genocide, it is completely useless. Eliminating chemical weapons seems to be one small part of the problem.

Finally, this new option came up where Syria (with the help of Russia) will surrender its chemical weapons arsenal to the UN. Obama stated that this happened “partly due to the threat of military force”. This is bologna! Obama is being played by both Russia and Syria. Both Putin and Assad know Obama does not have the votes in Congress to go to war which makes this offer even more suspicious. Do we really believe Putin and Assad will cave to Obama? They may surrender a small arsenal of chemical weapons and keep the rest. Or Syria can surrender all of its chemical weapons to the UN and have Russia supply them a new stockpile. The fact we are negotiating with Russia over Syria should be telling. Russia should not be part of any US decision in foreign affairs. Russia is using deception to protect its interest in Syria and does not want any outside interference – UN or USA. And in the end, both Syria and Russia will get their way so the President can save face in the US because even his own party was souring on the idea to intervene in Syria.

Seriously, I do not know whether to laugh or cry. Obama is nothing more than a puppet being manipulated by Putin, Assad, and his own political Party.

1 comment:

  1. I agree with you in most respects on this, Patrick, but I am bothered by the comparison between Iraq and Syria which so many are making. Iraq was believed to be violating a ceasefire agreement that was a condition of its truce with the U.S. Intelligence reports from the British indicated Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Hussein had actually attempted to assassinate a U.S. president (he should have been taken out just on that basis, IMO). Bush had a decent coalition for his war and, as you say, bi-partisan support. He had a clear goal – remove Saddam Hussein. In addition to all that we had not been engaged in continuous wars around the globe for the ten years prior to Iraq. So personally I don’t see the two situations as apples and apples. It’s understandable to me that people were persuaded to go to war in Iraq while they are not persuaded on Syria, especially since it’s abundantly clear that we would be going for the sole purpose of saving face for the idiot-mitten Obama.

    I think it’s true that Obama has been absolutely played by the Russians here. What’s happening is the logical consequence of a leader who acts on all the wrong motivations and never on principle. He drew the red line not because he believed the U.S. has a moral imperative to stand up against chemical warfare but because he wanted to look tough and important. He never expected anyone to hold him accountable for what he said because nobody usually does. And then he threatened to strike Syria not because of the moral imperative, as he claimed, but to save face for himself. This mess clearly demonstrates why leftists, who do everything based upon selfishness and narcissism, should never be allowed to lead.