We are appalled by the recent decline of popularity of President Barack Obama at the very time that citizens should be shouting his praise for keeping us out of senseless wars (Syria for one), forcing allies to step up and play a major role (Ukraine for one), and getting us out of the quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Critics and idlers like to say that Obama is ‘weak’ and this is encouraging every problem that breaks out in the world, as though with George W. Bush all was peace and quiet.
Thomas Friedman, columnist of the New York Times, focuses on the conflicts in series with an especially valuable article, “Will the ends, Will the means?”
He demonstrates point by point just how fruitless would have been U. S. further involvement in Syria. We would have been strengthening those who would choose to do us harm while wasting treasure and spilling the blood of our youth. (Of course the President would have made the military-industrial complex very happy.)
It isn’t that Obama is weak; rather he has shown the courage to stand up against popular outcry and wisely alter course when it became apparent that overthrow of President Bashar al-Assad would likely have brought ISIS to power.
President “W” took pride in digging in his heels once he had chosen a direction, ignoring advice and criticism from all parties including his own team. Obama evaluates and re-evaluates as time goes by, adjusting to new circumstances. That is what we expect of a leader.
Here are some of Friedman’s points concerning Syria from his column:
“Can they explain why Israel — a country next door to Syria that has better intelligence on Syria than anyone and could be as affected by the outcome there as anyone — has chosen not to bet on the secular, moderate Syrian rebels or arm them enough to topple Assad?..
“How could the good Syrian rebels have triumphed in Syria when the main funders of so many rebel groups there — Qatar and Saudi Arabia — are Sunni fundamentalist monarchies that oppose the very sort of democratic, pluralistic politics in their own countries that the decent Syrian rebels aspire to build in Syria? …
“Even if we had armed Syrian moderates, how could they have defeated a coalition of the Syrian Alawite army and gangs, backed by Russia, backed by Iran, backed by Hezbollah — all of whom play by “Hama Rules,” which are no rules at all — without the U.S. having to get involved?”
His other observations are just as trenchant. We urge the reading of his entire column.
There will be cause for the use of U. S. forces in the future where the mission is clear cut and we are protecting essential national interests and our security. But our job is to avoid the perception by other nations and especially our own citizenry (and some craven members of the political opposition)that the U. S. is obligated to get involved in skirmishes throughout the world.
When other countries learn that the U. S. is not their police department, they will begin to effectively partner with us in addressing mutual concerns. Let them take the lead when the problem is in their back yard; we can then help out.
