President Obama has now formally asked the Congress for approval of his desire to intervene (if that is the right term for what seems like more symbolism than actual commitment) in Syria’s Civil War due to the Assad regime’s alleged use of Chemical Weapons. The President has been ineffectual and inconsistent this past week week in his rhetoric and his poor communications strategy contributed mightily to loss of potential European allies on this matter (more on this later.) However, the President made clear his thoughts in a nationally televised address on Saturday putting to the end his week of wallowing indecision. The clarity offered in his speech gives Florida’s members of Congress much to ponder when they deliberate this matter.
First off, even though this administration says actions will be “limited” and British Prime Minister David Cameron in his failed efforts to rally UK action said regime change was “not on the agenda” how can you simply intervene in a Civil War and walk away with ramifications or without trying to take sides? That was Bill Clinton’s concern in Bosnia during the 1990s when European powers sent troops and the US did not until the Dayton Accords were signed thanks to Clinton’s leadership.
Additionally it is important to note the NSA debacle has created suspicion of this President abroad. The American left may have stayed largely silent on it in deference to our President, but the European left has not and many of my UK based friends who are active Labour Party members have changed their opinions radically of President Obama since he was re-elected. This isn’t necessarily fair but it is a new reality and why so many Labour MPs were not only adamant about not intervening in Syria but also making sure not just Tory P.M. David Cameron felt the sting of the rejection. American values are now seen as less clear and less defensible for many outside this country. George W. Bush certainly undermined American prestige to no end but after great fanfare and promise, the Obama recovery prestige wise has now lapsed back towards Bush levels.
Simply put, despite his brilliance and fine domestic record, President Obama is no longer trusted by large numbers of LIBERALS in the nations we are most closely aligned with. Again, I am not sure this is fair but it represents a reality some of which has been created by the leftist elements in the British press that tends to be Anti-American.
Chances are that the US coalition in this matter will be far smaller than the coalition in Iraq that was often mocked by the left in this country including by me. Then again this is a different situation and perhaps the US can act alone and be successful but again that is determination Congress must make.
I’ve been outspoken to this point in opposition to the potential intervention but I understand we need to confront Vladimir Putin’s Russia real soon either diplomatically or through a proxy war. The major geopolitical strategic question that begs itself in this conflict is it better to have a Russian/Iranian proxy in Assad or an Islamist government in Damascus? As a secularist who find religious Muslim governments particularly oppressive and dangerous (not just in the Middle East but also in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa), my instinct would be for the former but logic tells me the later can perhaps be worked with better than anyone associated with Putin right now. However, we have not seen anything resembling the will from this administration in its rhetoric, albeit inconsistent to “finish the job,” and perhaps it is too late to win the peace so to speak. When you intervene in powder kegs half-measures don’t work. The EU learned that in the Balkans in the 1990s and we learned that in Somalia, and it was reinforced after the bombings of the Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998 led to greater instability and eventually two full-fledged American wars.
If we go into Syria we must be all-in which means we must arm the rebels and overthrow Assad and cut Russian influence into that region. I actually like the sound of that but then worry about yet another American aided Islamist movement becoming oppressive to women, Christians and anyone else who may not share a radical view of Islam. I cannot overstate how dangerous I think Russia has become to the West again. But at this point it may be too late to go all in which means we can achieve nothing but a feel good moral victory over a human rights abuser if successful.
Ultimately a decision has to be made as to whether risking the lives of American women and men in a conflict that has no bearing on the national security interest of the United States beyond the outlined fears about Russia is worth it. All feeling human beings around the planet are outraged by the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime but is it at this point wise for the US to act unilateral and risk the lives of our men and women to make a moral point? On that I say no intervention, keep our troops at home, but I do feel the Russian threat is real and Congress must consider this and perhaps instruct the President to do more than just lob a few Cruise Missiles towards Damascus if we are to intervene. My preference would be to stay out but if we do get involved it cannot be yet another half-measure.
The Florida Squeeze 
THE REAL REASON FOR THE WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST
In mid-seventies, I wrote two books published by “Deutsches Uebersee-Institut,” a respected economic institute in Hamburg, Germany: “The Oil Price Policy of the OPEC Countries-Limits, Reasons and Backgrounds (1975)” and “OPEC and the New World Economic Order (1976).”
The central thesis in my works was based on the fact that rising oil prices do not bring long-term benefits to oil exporters and that if oil prices kept rising, it would devastate the economies of their own customers, the oil-consuming nations. In fact, OPEC could set prices at any level – to a point – and the market would be forced to accept it. Beyond that point, the customers might just go to war withe producers. My thesis was that for the oil-exporting nations of the Middle East to maximize their long-term benefits and avoid exploitation, they should require payment for their oil in their own national currencies.
Later, I wrote two more books, which were published in the United States: OIL & ISLAM – THE TICKING BOMB (1990) and my only fiction work, THE FINAL RECKONING – THE ISLAMIC PLOT TO DESTROY THE DOLLAR (1995). At least I hope it was fiction.
In October 2000 Saddam Hussein of Iraq announced that he intended to demand payment for his country’s oil in euros rather U.S dollars. This turned out badly for Saddam Hussein.
Muammar Qaddafi in Libya had a better idea: he would demand payment in gold-backed Libyan dinars, starting some times in 2011. This drew stern protest in form of aerial bombardments by Western powers and put an end to his plan and himself.
The real threat to the world economy as we know it is not about who controls the oil. It is about who might control the world’s reserve currency.
Watch this video; what a coincidence!
LikeLike
Kartik, I wrote a comment, went to WordPress….and as soon as I hit “Post Comment,” I was advised that it would not be posted. ?????????
LikeLike
Let me check and approve it
LikeLike
Patti Lynn,
It’s not showing up on my dashboard as a comment that needs to be approved. Not sure what happened to it. It’s not in Spam either.
LikeLike
This is a really thoughtful and well laid out article. It is very good that you are assessing the situation in a way that other liberal bloggers are not. Either it is we must support President Obama going to war because he is ours or it is we must be against war. This is much more balanced and fair.
LikeLike
I fear all we do is fight wars because of Israel. Keep our troops here instead of running up the defecit on another war with no real goals.
LikeLike
Concerned Democrats you are sadly mistaken. Israel is not pleased with Obama’s action with Syria. Despite the rhetoric you are hearing from DWS and Wexler, you are not correct. This is Obama’s mess and people like DWS don’t want Obama to look bad. If DWS and others really believe that this will protect Israel they are wrong. They know it will not. They refuse to push Obama on this. Each foreign policy mistake this man has made for the past several years and they have simply been a rubber stamp for this president. Their job is to put the president in check not give him a blank check. I have never been so ashamed to be a Democrat or have these fools represent me.
How much many are they taking from the war?
LikeLike
Good insight on the correlation between Obama’s NSA mess and the labour mos in Britain abandoning him.
This has been a fiasco. NO WAR!
LikeLike
Obama is not respected for all those reasons including:
NSA
Syria (no reaction from 6 months ago when they first thought chemical weapons were used)
Backtrack and not clear on message on administration
Israel is not happy with Obama despite what Democrats and Republicans are saying
They know Obama is up to the task with Iran…(still have not implemented full sanctions)
Egypt
Pre 1967 lines
Afganistan
Urgency of now..no wait I can do what I want..no I can’t…well even if they vote for it yes I can
Nobel Peace Prize. WTF are you all on?
Red line red line…
At least you have France..where is Burt with his Freedom Fries?
How many on the list waiting to get benefits from the VA already?
Pay raise for Congress?
No preparing for anything
You should vote all these fools out all of them!
LikeLike
What don’t you trust this president? The people objecting to military action claiming credibility is lost forget Bush is no longer president but Obama is. Pretending Obama is as much if a problem from a credibility standpoint as Bush is wrong particularly if you are a Democrat. Bush bungled Iraq because of his lies and deceit while Obama has been nothing but honest all along on this.
Time for us to act and show how we can win the peace with the right president!
LikeLike
I think it is very difficult to justify going after the British said no. Also Obama totally backtracked and I agree that he has been totally inconsistent. He went from saying Congress wasn’t needed to act to then calling Assad a murderer (Kerry said it) to then saying we can take our time pursuing what we called a murderer.
Anyone who believes this will be easy and just be a 3 day military action is an idiot. These things always become more and more drawn out and complicated. Can we really afford ANOTHER war? Constant war! I am tired of this nonsense.
I also have to say Kartik you are a disappointment. You should be strongly anti-war and say you are yet are hedging bringing Russia up and b/s like that. Who cares? No confrontation with Russia is inevitable unless we are unwilling to bend and continue to hold other countries to different standards than we hold ourselves.
Otherwise this is a good article.
LikeLike
[…] established that I do not like war and prefer diplomacy. I have taken the same attitude towards Syria and […]
LikeLike