President Barack Obama’s speech Tuesday leaves congress divided, as before, and this was structurally inherent in the speech, which spent most of its focus building a case that the Syrian government really did use chemical weapons against its own people, killing 1,429, more than 400 of which were children. But though Obama made such a case, thus making the Syrian president to be a liar, he nevertheless vowed on Tuesday to pursue diplomatic initiative from Russia’s regarding Syria’s chemical weapons, though he and congress have voiced skepticism over whether Russia and Syria will follow through.
He has thus asked for Congress to delay their vote on whether to strike Syria, as we wait for Syria and Russia to let their diplomacy play out whether they will put chemical weapons under international control. There is no timetable, but he said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad would have to give proof he kept his word on the matter.
Warning: Constant DOMAIN_JOBSEARCH_URL_HTTP already defined in /home/blogsites/jdjournal/www/wp-content/plugins/jobsearch/jobserach_constants.php on line 7
“It’s too early to tell whether this offer will succeed. And any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments. But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad’s strongest allies.”
If we can avoid military strike, but nevertheless enforce the international block of using chemical weapons, this is a solution that will satisfy many who prefer no war.
“If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons,” said Obama.
Sen. Rand Paul, (R-Ky.), at least, is in favor of such diplomacy, and said he would not vote for war, but prefers as usual less government intervention.
“Some argue that American credibility is on the line,” said Paul, as Fox News reported, “that because President Obama drew a red line with chemical weapons, America must act or lose credibility. I would argue that America’s credibility does not reside in one man.”
In a representative government, one man is not merely one man however, and many are concerned that waffling on this issue will weaken American’s international standing.
“The administration’s handling of the U.S. response to Syria has been so haphazard it’s disappointed even the president’s most ardent supporters,” Chairman Reince Priebus said. “This rudderless diplomacy has embarrassed America on the world stage. For a president who campaigned on building American credibility abroad, the lack of leadership coming from the Oval Office is astounding.”
