Secretary of State John Kerry made it clear that on a moral basis the United States needs to act and stated that American credibility in the region and around the world is on the line. Mr. Kerry quashed the use of Mr. Gregory's term, 'slam dunk,' but instead used the phrase 'high evidence' that WMDs were used outside of Damascus, and if you've seen the footage, there is in fact little doubt that Bashir Assad has used chemical weapons.Given this evidence and the fact that Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah are backing the Assad Regime, this is no time to unnecessarily beat up on President Obama politically because if one thing is clear at this point, the United States needs to act in a unified manner. This is to say that, what is first in the best interest of the country is that the President seek Congressional approval before moving ahead with military action. But understand that President Obama seemingly came to this decision only after he witnessed the British Parliament reject any military intervention in Syria with the U.S. as the lead. This isn't at all surprising given the fact that the last time the British followed us into war, it was a disaster. The president is playing a bit of politics here as he was prepared to go into Syria without Congressional authority, but now that he has called on Congress to give authorization, it will rightly shift the responsibility for the decision to both the Congressional and Executive branches of government.
And no matter what side of the political aisle you favor, you have to be satisfied with some of the thoughtful questions Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) brought up in today's interview. (Where we're quite leery when it comes Congressional wisdom is with House Speaker John Boehner. He's third in line to the presidency, and he's just no up to the task of leadership.) Senator Paul asked if a bombing campaign would worsen the refugee crisis in Jordan, which he seemed to think it would and we would agree. The problem there is that Jordan is a true ally of the United States and putting this kind of strain on them does not serve our interests well in the region. And this is where we would disagree with Senator Paul, the United States does have interests in the region that are affected by the civil war in Syria, and he named them - Russia and China as players in the region. China not so much as Russia and the reason is that Russia needs its access to the Mediterranean with its port located in Syria so it's in Russia's interest to back Assad. You might ask, doesn't Russia have any concern for the use of chemical weapons, and the answer is simply no. Remember, this is a Russian government that in the process of defeating Chechen rebels, conceded the deaths of hundreds of school children, so in other words Putin believes the means do justify the ends.
This is why the Obama Administration has been more deliberative, as Robert Gibbs put it in the round table discussion - Russia is a powerful rogue actor in this scenario that United States can in no way count on President Putin to be cooperative, and if for nothing else, be subversive to any action that could strengthen the United States' position. One can also ask where is the world community on this - the UN and the other regional players? Why did the British reject getting involved? And the reason is simple, one word - Iraq. The round table today discussed the U.S. credibility around the world, and it has been damaged, maybe not reparably but definitely for the foreseeable future. Katty Kay of the BBC cited it as the reason why the British Parliament said no to military intervention. Militarily, no one is assured of where U.S. leadership will take us.
In using military action, does the United States acting this way produce the right thing (what ever your interpretation is of that) ousting Assad from power and ending a civil war, in which WMD has been used, or does the United States escalate a proxy war with Russia and Iran. The latter scenario seems most likely, at least in the eyes of the British. We understand why Senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John McCain (R-AZ) want to go bigger militarily because half measures in cases like this tend to fail, and their goal as Bill Kristol outlined is to get rid of the Assad Regime. These three men have always been overly hawkish, and what they are not fully considering is if the United States does succeed in toppling the Assad regime, what are we left with?
During the panel discussion, it was mentioned that the Syrian rebels feel abandoned by the U.S. because it has been slow to act, and Mr. McCain has made this point. However, and let's be clear, the United States should not act based on anything the Syrian rebels say. Just because their goal is the same as the United States' goal of toppling Assad, the rebels' interests beyond that most likely don't meet with U.S. interests. Is there intention to set up a democratic Syria? Unlikely. Would their control of the country be inclusive with no persecution of Christians in the country, a concern voiced by Senator Paul? Doubtful.
Moral imperative, though seemingly noble, is not enough to warrant United States intervention. The use of chemical weapons is a red line, the president was right about that. Secretary Kerry was correct that if we allow Assad to act with impunity he may turn and use them against one of our allies in the region.The United States has to go big here but not necessarily in a military capacity. The military action needs to be preventive in nature - a no-fly zone, an overwhelming amount of aid to Syrian refugees (win their support), and perhaps targeted strikes on suspected chemical weapons installations. Where the U.S. needs to go radically big is to hit the UN, the WMF, and all the countries in the region in the wallet to pressure them to end this crisis. It can no longer solely be on the shoulders of the United States to end crises around the world. The global economy relies on everyone and that's how it should trend with conflicts around the world as well.
Round Table: Editor of the Weekly Standard, Bill Kristol; co-anchor and managing editor of “The PBS Newshour,” Gwen Ifill, who interviewed President Obama this week; Former White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs; and anchor for BBC World News America, Katty Kay.
Note: This week's Meet The Press is how every week should go - in depth interviews, staying on a few important topics and addressing them in detail so that one can achieve a full perspective on the pressing topic at hand.
No comments:
Post a Comment