A President of the United States must be strong, resolute, trustworthy and patriotic and must be able to make and carry out quick, hard decisions in the national interest, national security being the most important national interest of all.
President Obama possesses none of these requirements and the national security of the United States has been damaged and jeopardized as a result. He is the very antithesis of strong, resolute, trustworthy and patriotic and is simply incapable of making or carrying out quick, hard decisions in the national interest. Virtually every decision he makes is made for personal, political or ideological reasons or some combination of all three, and if those decisions damage and jeopardize the national interests of the United States, including U.S. national security, so be it.
Nothing illustrates this better than his reaction to the use of chemical weapons in Syria.
The minute that Obama said that the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons would cross a red line for the United States, which he has done on many occasions, was the minute that he committed the United States to responding militarily against the regime should such weapons be used...the minute that he came to the conclusion that the regime did in fact use chemical weapons was the minute he should have responded militarily...instead, he made the conclusion, did not respond and made it clear that he will not respond for some time yet, if in fact he responds at all...he has also made it clear that any possible response would be small-scale and very limited and would not be enough to dislodge the regime from power.
Whether one believes that the United States should use military force in Syria is irrelevant. Personally, I believe that the rebels in Syria are the true enemies of the United States, that it is entirely possible that they were the ones who used chemical weapons and that the national security of the U.S. is best served by backing the Syrian regime to the hilt because from a national security point of view the last thing America wants or needs is a rebel government in power in Damascus. Millions of other Americans believe the same, including much if not most of the military establishment. Nevertheless, what is relevant is that by not responding militarily immediately Obama reaffirmed a very clear message that he has been sending to America’s enemies (and allies, too for that matter) since he became President. He reaffirmed yet again that he is weak, that he changes his mind constantly according to which way the wind is blowing, that he is neither trustworthy or patriotic, that any commitment he does make is worthless and meaningless, that he is incapable of making quick, hard decisions and carrying them out and that personal, political and/or ideological considerations will trump national security considerations in any decision he does make.
All of which gives carte blanche to the enemies of the United States to do exactly as they wish because they know that Obama will not take meaningful action against them no matter what they do. Enemies include the rebels in Syria, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the forces of darkness in Iran, the rest of the Middle East and the rest of the world, including in the U.S. homeland itself.
All of which tells America’s allies, especially Israel and South Korea, that they are on their own, that they cannot depend on the United States to assist them if they are attacked and that they will have to deal with attacks or the threat of attacks by themselves.
All of which increases the likelihood of chemical weapons being used, increases the possibility of a war, possibly nuclear, which engulfs the Middle East and could easily turn into World War 1111 and encourages and enables the rise and domination of Islamists and Islam at the expense of freedom and democracy throughout the free world.
Yes, including in the United States.
None of which enhances the national security of the United States.
All of which damages and jeopardizes it.
So what should President Obama actually do about Syria?
He should announce to the world that he has decided not to take military action against the Syrian regime and has seen the light and decided to back it instead because doing so is in the best interests of the national security of the United States, the Syrian regime being by far the lesser of two evils for the U.S. to deal with from a national security point of view.
He should then do exactly that.
To the hilt.
What will he end up doing?
I don’t know and neither does anyone else.
All I know is that whatever he does will be in his own perceived best interests because that is his foremost consideration and always has been.
In everything, never mind Syria, the Middle East or anything else.
What a farce.
Yours sincerely,
Jerry Philipson
Comox, British Columbia, Canada
