Home > Uncategorized > President Obama’s Empty Boast on Syria

President Obama’s Empty Boast on Syria

December 26, 2013 Leave a comment Go to comments

As of this moment more than 150,000 Syrians have been killed, Assad is still in power and killing more people every day by dropping

Mr. President: You who feel no pain at the suffering of others,  It is not fitting for you to be called human

Mr. President: You who feel no pain at the suffering of others, It is not fitting for you to be called human

barrel bombs over their heads, 9 million Syrians have been homeless and displaced within and outside the Syria’s borders. Syrian refugees are residing in a deplorable living condition across the borders. While Obama boasts to his appeasing foreign policy, his dogma in Syria has led to inconceivable growth in number of the Islamists and Al-Qaeda in the country, which has boosted the security threat not only in the region but around the globe. Obama cannot be called as an honorable man because an honorable person stands and fight for what is right, he not only did not stand against the intervention of the Iranian Mullahs’ terrorists in Syria (which would be the right thing to do), on the contrary he helped them out financially by lifting some of their sanctions so that they can continue helping Assad slaughtering the Syrian people. The end result has been the accumulations of Islamists, Al-Qaeda groups, and the Mullahs’ terrorists in Syria and neighboring countries, enough apocalyptic power to turn the whole Middle East upside down. [DID]

IT WAS astonishing to hear President Obama, in the preamble to his end-of-year news conference last week, cite Syria as one of his foreign policy successes.

“[J]ust as we’re strengthening our position here at home, we’re also standing up for our interests around the world,” Mr. Obama said. “This year we’ve demonstrated that with clear-eyed, principled diplomacy, we can pursue new paths to a world that’s more secure, a future where Iran does not build a nuclear weapon, a future where Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles are destroyed.”

Unfortunately, the White House press corps was not as struck by this boast as were we, and there were no follow-up questions. Here’s what we would have asked:

“Mr. President, Syria is in the process of giving up its chemical weapons, as you say. At the same time, it’s been more than two years since you both predicted and demanded the resignation of Syria’s dictator Bashar al-Assad. Yet he has strengthened his position and continues to commit war crimes.

“His forces are besieging hundreds of thousands of people, deliberately starving them to death, according to your secretary of state. His helicopters are dropping ‘barrel bombs’ on apartment buildings in Aleppo, bombs ‘typically packed with screws, scrap metal, old car parts, blades and explosives,’as one activist told the Wall Street Journal. More than 9 million Syrians — better than a third of the country — have been driven from their homes. Is this record consistent with ‘standing up for our interests around the world’?”

Not having gotten that question in, we listened Sunday to Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, Susan Rice, on CBS News’s “60 Minutes.” When interviewer Lesley Stahl asked whether it had been a mistake not to support moderate Syrian forces early in the crisis (before Ms. Rice was in her current job), the adviser demurred: “Well, Lesley, I think we’ll have to review that in the context of history. And I can’t judge that at this point.”

Asked why the United States is not acting now, she gave an answer that, again, we found surprising. “It’s not that simple,” she said. “The international community isn’t unified, there’s no agreement to intervene, there’s no basis in international law to intervene.”

Regarding “Not simple,” we all can agree. The longer the conflict has dragged on, the more Islamist radicals have come to the fore, muddying the question of whom the United States could support.

But what of humanitarian intervention of the sort Ms. Rice favored when people were starving in Darfur? In that case, she seemed to have a different view on international law. “Others will insist that, without the consent of the United Nations or a relevant regional body, we would be breaking international law,” she wrote with two co-authors on the opposite page in 2006. “Perhaps, but the [U.N.] Security Council recently codified a new international norm prescribing ‘the responsibility to protect.’ It commits U.N. members to decisive action, including enforcement, when peaceful measures fail to halt genocide or crimes against humanity.”

Ms. Rice championed the concept of “responsibility to protect” again in a speech in 2009, when she was serving as Mr. Obama’s ambassador to the United Nations. “We all know the greatest obstacle to swift action in the face of sudden atrocity is, ultimately, political will,” she said.

Editorials represent the views of The Washington Post as an institution, as determined through debate among members of the editorial board.

 Editorial Board – Washington Post

Published: December 23

Related link – http://tinyurl.com/qgkhlks

Advertisements
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: