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.
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?