Obama May Get the Votes He Wants to Attack Syria
House Speaker John Boehner apparently will vote for Obama's planned attack on Syria. So despite initial indications of resistance on the part of some politicians and citizens, this attack may yet take place.
I watched Obama on Saturday when he made his announcement that he was planning to attack - that is, if Congress decides it's as good an idea as he thinks it is. The little speech he made managed to assert that he had the right as President to attack without Congressional approval, but he wanted the approval anyway. Why? He tried to make it appear that he was somehow supporting the Constitution in seeking a vote from Congress, even as he asserted that he didn't need the vote (or, one supposes the Constitution either) to go ahead and do what he wants as President.
But in all this chatter, you have to wonder where is the clear proof that those whom Obama would attack are the guilty parties - the ones who actually used chemical weapons against Syrians? Are we allowed to see the "proof," assuming it exists, or is such proof somehow confidential (for national security purposes, of course)?
So let's say the proof exists, isn't there another questions that needs to be answered here? Like what business is it of the U.S. government to attack another country which has committed acts of atrocity against its own citizens?
Or, even better, how about we look at history, where you will notice that for centuries this part of the world has been a place where outsiders enter at their peril. In fact, this whole region has been a graveyard of empires - including the Roman Empire. While some outsiders have been able to conquer Syria, none have done so without ultimately paying a steep price, and ultimately having to retreat. Even Rome, after about 400 years of many brutal suppressions of Syrian uprisings, wound up going away. One of those uprisings was when the Jews in Israel (a part of "Syria" at the time) saw Jerusalem's temple destroyed by future Roman emperor Titus's army. (A arch depicting Titus victory, including details of his looting of the contents of the Temple, still stands in Rome.)
And now it seems the U.S. government - in the face of all historical precedent - may be the next outsider to tell the Syrians how they should get along with each other, and what sort of government they should have, or whatever else the U.S. government has up its sleeve in their military plans.
I certainly understand the sentiment that if someone commits an atrocity, it ought not be allowed to stand. But connecting that sentiment with the history of the region and the harsh reality of Syria's civil war today simply isn't rationally possible, in my humble opinion. And when you consider that history clearly teaches us that Syrians will only get along when they submit to a powerful ruler, I simply don't see how you justify a military attack. If Assad isn't going to be that strongman ruler anymore, then someone else will have to step into the breach. When you think about this, heaven help the people in Syria if the U.S. military attack - whatever form it might take - leaves Assad even weaker, without supplying someone else to take over. Haven't enough people died already? Why would the U.S. want to cause even more to perish in the inevitable increased chaos that would develop with a weakened Assad?
If Obama gets his way, I fear for the people of Syria, many of whom have been and will be innocent victims of this latest eruption of what really is an endless power struggle between factions that hate each other, always have and always will.
Never mind the fact that, as far as we know, there isn't even clear proof that Assad and his government were the ones responsible for the murder of Syrians by chemical weapons.
One final thought: The calling on Congress to weigh in here - despite the fact that Obama adamantly insists that he has the authority to order a military strike without Congressional approval - really does strike me as playing politics with a dangerous and tragic situation. Strikes me, in fact, as pretty reprehensible political manipulation.
I watched Obama on Saturday when he made his announcement that he was planning to attack - that is, if Congress decides it's as good an idea as he thinks it is. The little speech he made managed to assert that he had the right as President to attack without Congressional approval, but he wanted the approval anyway. Why? He tried to make it appear that he was somehow supporting the Constitution in seeking a vote from Congress, even as he asserted that he didn't need the vote (or, one supposes the Constitution either) to go ahead and do what he wants as President.
But in all this chatter, you have to wonder where is the clear proof that those whom Obama would attack are the guilty parties - the ones who actually used chemical weapons against Syrians? Are we allowed to see the "proof," assuming it exists, or is such proof somehow confidential (for national security purposes, of course)?
So let's say the proof exists, isn't there another questions that needs to be answered here? Like what business is it of the U.S. government to attack another country which has committed acts of atrocity against its own citizens?
Or, even better, how about we look at history, where you will notice that for centuries this part of the world has been a place where outsiders enter at their peril. In fact, this whole region has been a graveyard of empires - including the Roman Empire. While some outsiders have been able to conquer Syria, none have done so without ultimately paying a steep price, and ultimately having to retreat. Even Rome, after about 400 years of many brutal suppressions of Syrian uprisings, wound up going away. One of those uprisings was when the Jews in Israel (a part of "Syria" at the time) saw Jerusalem's temple destroyed by future Roman emperor Titus's army. (A arch depicting Titus victory, including details of his looting of the contents of the Temple, still stands in Rome.)
And now it seems the U.S. government - in the face of all historical precedent - may be the next outsider to tell the Syrians how they should get along with each other, and what sort of government they should have, or whatever else the U.S. government has up its sleeve in their military plans.
I certainly understand the sentiment that if someone commits an atrocity, it ought not be allowed to stand. But connecting that sentiment with the history of the region and the harsh reality of Syria's civil war today simply isn't rationally possible, in my humble opinion. And when you consider that history clearly teaches us that Syrians will only get along when they submit to a powerful ruler, I simply don't see how you justify a military attack. If Assad isn't going to be that strongman ruler anymore, then someone else will have to step into the breach. When you think about this, heaven help the people in Syria if the U.S. military attack - whatever form it might take - leaves Assad even weaker, without supplying someone else to take over. Haven't enough people died already? Why would the U.S. want to cause even more to perish in the inevitable increased chaos that would develop with a weakened Assad?
If Obama gets his way, I fear for the people of Syria, many of whom have been and will be innocent victims of this latest eruption of what really is an endless power struggle between factions that hate each other, always have and always will.
Never mind the fact that, as far as we know, there isn't even clear proof that Assad and his government were the ones responsible for the murder of Syrians by chemical weapons.
One final thought: The calling on Congress to weigh in here - despite the fact that Obama adamantly insists that he has the authority to order a military strike without Congressional approval - really does strike me as playing politics with a dangerous and tragic situation. Strikes me, in fact, as pretty reprehensible political manipulation.
Comments