by Dan Margalit
If the U.S. had
concurrently announced that Syrian President Bashar Assad had used
chemical weapons and that an American military response would be
contingent on congressional approval, then there would have been no big
problem. But U.S. President Barack Obama himself believed that he did
not need the backing of his legislature for a punitive strike against
the mass murderer Assad. Obama publicly set red lines for Assad and the
Syrian ruler brazenly violated them.
Obama's desire to
receive congressional support for military action is somewhat
understandable. In 1964, Lyndon B. Johnson got Congress to approve the
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which enabled Johnson to escalate U.S.
military involvement in Vietnam. Obama wants his own Gulf of Tonkin
Resolution. So be it.
But during the
worldwide diplomatic campaign that preceded his speech on Saturday, did
Obama ever mention the possibility that he would ask for congressional
support for a military strike against Syria? If he intended to do so all
along, why didn't he say so from the start? The idea of relying on
congressional support arose belatedly. It is an excuse. With his words
and cursory decisions, Obama is undermining America's status as the
world's sole superpower.
If the phrase
"patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" is true, then in this
instance it is also right to say that Congress is the last refuge of the
vacillator. Congress did not demand the authority to decide on a
military strike against Syria. But Obama has now forced American
legislators to make a decision on matter of which their professional
understanding is limited and their views are partly fueled by irrelevant
political considerations.
Obama is a carbon copy
of America's 39th president, Jimmy Carter. They both had delusional
ideas, like the "Arab Spring." Carter allowed the Shah of Iran Mohammad
Reza Pahlavi (who was indeed a tyrant) to fall in 1979, and Ayatollah
Ruhollah Khomeini rose to power. To this day, Iran still threatens to
lead humanity into Armageddon. Meanwhile, Obama had a hand in the 2011
ouster of then-Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and is currently making
life difficult for Col. Gen. Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi by bizarrely
supporting the Muslim Brotherhood. Everything that Muslim Brotherhood
leader Mohammed Morsi represents stands in stark contrast to America's
heritage.
Nations that have
joined the world's enlightened and democratic community, for which the
U.S. provides the umbrella, since World War II now face a two-fold
problem.
The first tough element
of the problem is that the U.S. has lost its will to fulfill its duties
as a superpower. It was this American weakness that led Britain, Canada
and Germany to jump ship ahead of an attack on Syria. And the second,
and even graver, component of the problem is that America's evasion of
carrying out an strike on Syria took place not after silence by the
president, but rather after he had set red lines for Assad, the
violation of which were supposed to constitute a casus belli.
Obama has asked the world -- and
Israel -- to trust that he will not let Iran develop nuclear weapons.
The president has called on Israel to make compromises, pledging that he
would have its back, but what good are his promises? Even if the U.S.
launches a limited strike on Assad in another 10 or 12 days, that would
only partially repair the damage that has been done.
Dan Margalit
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=5595
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment