Obama on Syria: Nobel Peace Prize Winner Tries to Gin Up War

by Gerard Emershaw

On the evening of September 10, 2013, Nobel Peace Prize winner President Barack Obama spoke to the American people and tried to sell them on an interventionist war with Syria that they do not want:

Over the past two years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad has turned into a brutal civil war. Over 100,000 people have been killed. Millions have fled the country. In that time, America has worked with allies to provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition, and to shape a political settlement. But I have resisted calls for military action, because we cannot resolve someone else’s civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Humanitarian support? Like the weapons that the CIA has been shipping to Syrian rebels? Moderate opposition? Like the al Qaeda affiliated group the al-Nusra Front, which an analyst has recently called the best armed al Qaeda affiliate? Moderates like Farouq Brigade cannibal leader Abu Sakkar, who consumed his enemy’s heart in a video? Moderates like the Syrian rebels murdering helpless bound Syrian soldiers in cold blood? Moderates like the Syrian rebels murdering children in Christian villages? With moderates like these, who needs radical Jihadists?  

President Obama claims to have “resisted calls for military action.” What this really amounts to saying is that he followed the Constitution, which states that only Congress may declare war. Given that he egregiously violated both the Constitution and the likely unconstitutional War Powers Resolution with his “kinetic military action” in Libya—which produced as blowback the massacre in Benghazi—perhaps in the bizarre world that we all live in, he should be lauded. Then again, according to Secretary of State John Kerry, President Obama believes that he can attack Syria without the approval of Congress. If he does believe that, then all of this is nothing but a charade. He would claim minutes later:

So even though I possess the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress. I believe our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress. And I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together.

It turns out the speech would be a charade that would basically just waste time and needlessly pre-empt the regularly scheduled television programming. No news here. President Obama never believed in the Constitution, and he still does not.

According to President Obama:

The situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st, when Assad’s government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children. The images from this massacre are sickening: Men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas. Others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath. A father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk. On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons, and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off-limits—a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war. … Moreover, we know the Assad regime was responsible. 

President Obama does not know that Assad was responsible for the attack. Perhaps he believes that Assad did. Perhaps Assad did. Assad is certainly a ruthless and murderous dictator. However, Syrian rebel group and al Qaeda affiliate the al-Nusra Front has claimed that it is responsible for the attack blamed on Assad. Furthermore, the UN investigators have yet to release their report on the sarin gas attacks in Syria.

Assuming that Assad is responsible for the gas attacks, does that make him any worse than the United States that has employed such weapons as atomic bombs, Agent Orange, and depleted uranium tipped missiles? How is what Assad did any worse than what the United States helped Saddam Hussein do to Iranians? How is dying in a gas attack any worse than dying in a drone attack?

According to President Obama, Syrian use of chemical weapons is a danger to national security:

Let me explain why. If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them. Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield. And it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians. If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan, and Israel. And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction, and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran—which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon, or to take a more peaceful path.

Talk about a flimsy slippery slope argument! It is unlikely that Syria—or any other nation—would launch any kind of unprovoked gas attack against American soldiers. If the United States launches an illegal unprovoked war against some nation and that nation uses chemical weapons, who could blame them? Are there any weapons that Americans would refuse to use if the existence of the nation were in danger? After all, the United States was prepared to use nuclear weapons against the existential threat of the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Any nation that used chemical weapons against the United States or its allies would be crushed. Even the most maniacal dictator knows that. If anyone would ever use chemical weapons against Americans, it would be al Qaeda—the very group that is fighting among the Syrian rebels. If the rebels win, then al Qaeda gains possession of a cache of chemical weapons. How is that good?

The issue of Iran and nuclear weapons has absolutely nothing to do with Syria and chemical weapons. Unless and until the United States stops bringing about regime change in non-nuclear nations like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya while refraining from bringing military action against belligerent nuclear nations like North Korea, then the only sane thing for a nation with ample natural resources and no love for the United States is to develop or acquire a nuclear weapon.

Sounding like Orwell’s Big Brother, the Nobel Peace Prize winner contends that we must make war in Syria:

And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use.

If Syria is a threat to the national security of the United States, then virtually every nation on the face of the globe is. Does that mean the United States should launch Tomahawk missiles against every nation? Actually, President Obama would later reverse course and claim that “the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military.” However, it is unclear how targeted strikes would make Assad less likely to use chemical weapons. If the strikes begin to turn the tide against his regime, it would be more likely that he would become desperate and use more chemical weapons. What is the alternative? Toppled dictators do not meet good ends. Just ask Saddam Hussein or Muammar Qaddafi. Actually, you cannot ask them anything anymore. Without putting boots on the ground, how does President Obama expect to degrade Syria’s chemical weapons supply? There is strong evidence that Syria’s stockpile of chemical weapons is protected from air strikes.

Obama continued his speech by answering questions that he allegedly received from members of Congress and in letters from the American people. When did he start listening to Congress or the American people? Do people really still send letters? It is more likely that these were questions that one of his aides saw on Twitter. Three of these questions were particularly interesting. The first involved the possibility of getting the nation entangled in another needless war:

First, many of you have asked, won’t this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are “still recovering from our involvement in Iraq.” A veteran put it more bluntly: “This nation is sick and tired of war.” My answer is simple: 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. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons, and degrading Assad’s capabilities.

First, as previously stated, a limited air campaign of targeted strikes will not accomplish any of the President’s objectives. Secondly, how is launching Tomahawk missiles against an enemy not a war? Thirdly, does he not realize that this action could ignite a broader regional war that would pull the United States in? Fourthly, does he not realize that such military belligerency is irrational when it could pull nuclear nations like Russia and China in on the other side? Fifthly, does he not realize that the nation is $17 trillion in debt and even “kinetic military actions” are expensive when you are launching Tomahawk missiles at $1.5 million a pop?

President Obama later considered an even more important question:

Many of you have asked a broader question: Why should we get involved at all in a place that’s so complicated, and where—as one person wrote to me—“those who come after Assad may be enemies of human rights?” It’s true that some of Assad’s opponents are extremists. But al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death. The majority of the Syrian people—and the Syrian opposition we work with—just want to live in peace, with dignity and freedom. And the day after any military action, we would redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism.

Those “moderates” again! A “moderate” Jihadist is like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and a benevolent dictator—it does not exist. Even Orwell’s Big Brother would be confused by President Obama’s doublespeak. How would attacking al Qaeda’s enemy hurt them? Did attacking Nazi Germany during World War II hurt the Soviet Union? Did attacking Japan hurt China? If Assad were to get toppled by air strikes the way that Qaddafi was in Libya, how would gaining control of yet another country hurt al Qaeda? Has he forgotten about the blowback from the Libyan debacle? Of course, he would love to forget about Benghazi, but he surely has not. A political solution? If President Obama wants a political solution, why is he not working on one? Then again, maybe he should just sit this civil war out the way that Britain, France, Spain, and Russia sat out the American Civil War and allowed President Lincoln to crush a violent rebel force even when that meant Lincoln was killing civilians.

Finally, President Obama addressed whether the United States should follow Woodrow Wilson’s dictate to “make the world safe for democracy” by being the policeman of the world:

Finally, many of you have asked: Why not leave this to other countries, or seek solutions short of force?  As several people wrote to me, “We should not be the world’s policeman.” I agree, and I have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions. Over the last two years, my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warning and negotiations—but chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime. However, over the last few days, we’ve seen some encouraging signs. In part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action, as well as constructive talks that I had with President Putin, the Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons. The Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons, and even said they’d join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use. It’s too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments. But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad’s strongest allies.

It is nice that the Nobel Peace Prize winner claims to prefer peaceful solutions. But does he? He ordered a surge in Afghanistan, drone campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen, and “kinetic military action” in Libya. When has he ever managed to bring about a peaceful solution? In what sense has he done anything but try to act like policeman of the world? Of course, in many instances, President Obama acts like a policeman defending one group of criminals against another group of criminals. In some places like Bahrain, he even acts like a policeman defending criminals against innocent victims. The former KGB goon Vladimir Putin is a despot. There is no doubt about that. He is certainly not working for altruistic purposes here. He only seeks peace because he wants the Assad regime to survive due to the fact that Syria is a Russian client state and provides Russia with a base on the Mediterranean. But what kind of world do we live in when a KGB goon might bring peace while a Nobel Peace Prize winning American President promises only war? During the Cold War, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and ran a police state that spied on its own people. Today, the United States is occupying Afghanistan and running a police state that spies on its own people. Up is down and day is night, apparently.   

As he neared the conclusion of his charade of a speech, President Obama continued to base his hawkish argument for war on an appeal to emotion rather than on logic:

And so, to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America’s military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just. To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain, and going still on a cold hospital floor. For sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough. Indeed, I’d ask every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos of the attack, and then ask: What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas, and we choose to look the other way?

If President Obama enjoys watching videos, perhaps he should watch this video of children killed or injured in drone strikes. Or perhaps he should not base his decisions on emotion at all. His job is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. That is a matter of reason and not emotion. Russia killed children in Chechnya. China killed children in Tibet. Should the United States attack these nations? Or is it all really just about the fact that the children in Syria were killed by gas attack? What does that really matter? Assad simply does not have Predator drones or depleted uranium tipped Tomahawk missiles. Tyrants kill the innocent with the weapons that are ready to hand.

As he closed his speech, President Obama quoted FDR:

Franklin Roosevelt once said, “Our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are challenged.”

Quoting FDR at this juncture might have been a bad idea. After all, it was President Roosevelt who maneuvered the United States into World War II by imposing an oil embargo on Japan and inviting the blowback that occurred at Pearl Harbor. If President Obama is to learn any lesson from FDR, perhaps it should be a lesson of avoiding a world war by being careful what actions one takes in foreign policy.

Like any morally and intellectually bankrupt politician, President Obama closes by invoking the children:

America is not the world’s policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act. That’s what makes America different. That’s what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth.

Children. Always the children. American children will only face danger if President Obama continues with his reckless foreign policy and creates blowback that produces the next major terrorist attack on American soil. Children will die in Syria one way or the other. Sad but true. Perhaps they will die at the hands of Assad. Perhaps they will die at the hands of the Jihadist rebels. But Syrian children should not die from American missiles. Syria has not attacked the United States and poses no threat to the United States. Attacking Syria would just be naked aggression with no purpose.

Each day Syria feels more and more like déjà vu all over again. Ba’athist dictator? Check. Vague intelligence claims about weapons of mass destruction? Check. A lack of an actual threat to the United States? Check. The potential to create a power vacuum that will help Jihadist terrorists? Check. Albert Einstein defined ‘insanity’ as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Why would any sane person believe that military action in Syria will not end up a disaster like Iraq or Libya?