|
In response to
"He won in that, if this works, Assad won't be able to gas his own people..."
by
Mel Profit
|
I have such mixed feelings on this whole thing (including how it was handled). We can beat up Obama for his handling of this all day, but the truth
Posted by
pmb (aka pmb)
Sep 10 '13, 09:33
|
is there simply was no good answer. He could have acted immediately with potentially the least personal fallout because the effects would probably not have been felt during his presidency. But long term there's virtually no telling what the results would have been. It also could have resulted in Israel being dragged into the conflict which could have inflamed the whole region. Deciding to engage congress may have made him look weak, but don't we generally want Congress involved in these decisions (if, you know, Congress wasn't completely dysfunctional)? We would have wanted Bush to engage Congress. We should want the same from Obama.
At the same time, the default position should be to back up the president unless convinced otherwise, rather than the reverse so we don't look emasculated. In the end, I'm surprised so many people are willing to turn their backs on the use of chemical weapons. There have to be lines and unfortunately we're the ones who need to enforce them. Ultimately this is likely the best solution, not just to get the weapons away from Asaad, but to get them away from the rebels if they ever get the opportunity to get their hands on them. We should push for this to be coupled with a timetable and verification and assurances from the Russians that if they fail to meet those demands from UN inspectors, they will not veto a security counsel resolution.
|