Played As Idiots?

Losing by Winning?

On September 10, 2013, President Obama addressed the American people on the state of the situation in Syria. In the days and hours leading up to that speech, Russia announced it had worked out a skeletal deal with the Syrian regime,

The President's address seemed to lay out the case for limited intervention in Syria, but no deployment of troops. But the President also announced that he was putting his efforts to win Congressional approval on standby. This was proving to be a hard sell, with opposition coming from both sides of the aisle.

This decsion was hailed by the anti-war, anti-imperilalist, as a victory. I cannot argue that it is, but I have to wonder at what cost it may have come down the road.

The main issue is that this makes the United States, and Obama, look weak. A President who faces division and resistance from the base of his own party, even in efforts to avoid the mistakes of the past. Russia, an ally of Syria, comes out looking like the stronger power. It also creates the idea of the proverbial fox watching the chickens. The plan Russia proposes also currently lacks any punishment should Assad break the agreement.

Also, this seems to show a divide between the President and his activist base. MoveOn.org and other groups that have stood behind Obama, were now standing against him. Now it could be argued that this shows that we are not blind followers of our leaders the way the Republican Party was during the "War on Terror". I could see in 2014 and 2016 a lot of Democrats staying home.

In the 1960's, someone from the old Soviet Union called the anti-war protestors "useful idiots". People like Scott Walker, Rick Perry and Rand Paul may see the current opponents of action in Syria the same way.




Comments 2 comments

chefsref profile image

chefsref 3 years ago from Citra Florida

It looks to me like Obama may stumble into eliminating chemical weapons in Syria. Considering that there are a hundred thousand already dead why are we only offended by the ones killed by chemicals? A parent holding a dead child killed by bombing is no happier than a parent holding a dead child killed by gas.

1) I'm still not convinced that Assad was responsible for the attack. The rebels stand to gain if we get involved. How can we be certain that there is no element in Assad's forces that actually sides with the rebels?

2) The thing that has been avoided in all of these conversations is What next? If we strike and they use chemicals again, do we strike again? Are we willing to take ownership of Syria's civil war? Will we have to put "boots on the ground"?

If Assad falls, which group will take control? There are "moderate" rebels, Islam extremists and Al Qaeda rebels in the rebellion. Will we have to continue fighting until our side wins, or walk away in disgust?

As to whether we look weak in some eyes, the world knows we spend more on our military than any other country. Provoke us at your own peril


CJStone profile image

CJStone 3 years ago from Whitstable, UK

There is growing body of evidence, in fact, that the rebels were behind the attack. Also, whatever Obama says about "red lines" the rest of the world, particularly in the Middle East, are fully aware that the US and it's allies have used chemical weapons in the past. Think Vietnam. Think Falujah. Think Gaza. Which just makes the US look like the biggest hypocrites on the planet.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working