Mr. President, If You Are a Man of Peace, Stay Out of Syria!

A Pew Research poll indicates that most Americans are against a  missile attack  on Syria.  And anecdotal evidence gleaned  from members of Congress  reflects the same  general conviction among their constituents.   Nonetheless our president and his team of advisers are tone deaf to these rumbles of war weariness and fatigue across the nation. And the winds of war seem to be gaining their inevitable momentum once again.

It is war we are talking about.  To call it anything else is like putting lipstick on the proverbial pig.  We are about to intervene in a civil war. The justification is the horrific use of chemical weapons by Bashar al- Assad, the Syrian dictator, an atrocity that killed over a thousand civilians including many children.  This is a genuine war crime  and  Assad should be held accountable for it.  Just as the ruthless, cold-blooded dictators in Africa should. They also have  wreaked havoc upon innocent defenseless civilians and have crossed many times  that red line civilized nations have drawn.  Yet we oddly have  never felt oompelled to "degrade and deter" their capabilities to commit genocides.

During their testimony before Congress, Secretary of State Kerry, Secretary of Defense Hagel, and General Dempsey have admitted that  the  unforeseen can  happen; that there might be unintended consequences. We have been there, done that before.

Then there is the calculus of collateral damage, one of the most odious of euphemisms.  General Dempsey puts it low on the scale of probability.  He didn't go into any more specifics.  It would hurt his sales pitch.

Can't we , at least,  exhaust every channel of diplomacy?   After all, that's why I voted for Obama in the first place.

 

Filed under: peace and war

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Great post. So clear, and eloquently written. Thank you!

  • Obama is a man whose roots are steeped in ideology and the political game, so he cannot be a man of peace unless it settles with both, and then only until his ends change the means. Nothing is "his": not the economy, not the failures of his health care policies, not the Bengazi killings and not this upcoming act of war or the ongoing drone wars in other countries. He is the first Bystander President.

    What did you expect from a person who rose from the corrupt ooze of Chicago politics, Gandi?

    What are the odds he will return his Nobel Peace Prize?

    Please don't reference George Bush, Quark, as I was not a fan of his, either.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Dear Richard--
    Sadly, I think you are right --there is so much ego, greed and ideology involved--in Chicago politics and the Middle East.
    Did we think Obama would rise from this mud like a lotus flower? Maybe so.

    It is a difficult situation you have articulated very well (and Jack, you too, in your posts.) There was another post in April by How You Get Hungry that also laid out the situation.

    I just think AW made a clear and reasoned plea for diplomacy. He spoke for many who don't have the answers or the words.

  • I went enough on this in 2 posts on Chicago Political Commentary, so I am wrung out.

Leave a comment