My President, lately I wrote a few articles expressing my thoughts about your request, that Congress give you its endorsement for striking Syria. I believe and I am confident that if America is in danger of being attacked, knowing my fellow Americans now and during WWII, that no American would hesitate to back you in regard to Syria’s behavior. But after a few days, following various speeches and interpretations, I found that there is a lot of doubt and no one could explain why now, after a few years of fight in Syria and so many dead people, including women and children, our president didn’t say a word.
Personally I almost was with you when you did your presentation, but now I don’t believe that Assad is the one who gave the order to gas women and children without any legitimate reason, knowing that Assad is himself a medical doctor, on one hand, and on the other hand, knowing that there are 9 or more groups of fighters in Syria, and many of them are not friendly fighters and even worse than Assad fighters.
For the last few days my conscience constantly bothered me, as there are many questions that no one has answered until now. But one reason which is clear to me is the way you presented it, which is - we are in an economic situation where beside the fact that many departments were obliged to cut their budgets because of the tremendous debt we have accumulated since you became our president, which caused so many people to be unemployed in the United States, you have impoverished the entire nation. I can say that we cannot help anyone prior to redressing our economy and our people reaching a status where every family can go to sleep without being hungry.
As for your request that Congress vote for striking Syria the way you described it, as a man who lived through WWII and witnessed wars, knowing the suffering of human beings, I came to the conclusion that by launching the Tomahawks just to destroy installations and communication centers, there would be collateral damage, which would add unnecessary loss of human lives und suffering while there are many unexplored ways which could isolate Assad and his government and prevent them from causing more destruction and human suffering. As I mentioned in my articles, no one is sure that President Assad gave the order for these atrocities.
I know from experience, that no war was ever won without boots on the ground and air planes in the sky. For sure, cruise missiles can destroy many targets and will also kill many people. Do we want to repeat the “leading from behind” as we did it in Libya? Who will secure the gas depots? I remember in Libya, we lead from behind and left the entire depots of Kaddafi’s army untouched. Can Obama lead the fight from the ship? I don’t believe it. In this situation no one would like to see American blood spilled. If we have to go, then we have to go with strength and security.
I ask myself how it is possible that no other country is prepared to give even moral support to our president for this endeavor. No one understood the way you see the situation, the way you and your secretaries described it; as I can see it, the House of Representatives and the Senate are not prepared to give you their support and even the ones who are prepared to give you this kind of support would do so not for its merit, but only as to be loyal to you and to the United States.
I found it lacking elegance and even arrogant the way you said: “Even if the Congress votes against this resolution, “I will go alone.” I am confident that the majority will vote for this resolution, if the situation is clear and presents no doubt. Despite all this, America is strong, as we saw it in WWII how the United States, despite the surprise attack of the Japanese on Pearl Harbor, emerged victorious. Americans are the most charitable human beings in the world, and the entire world knows it.
Copyright 2013 Emile Tubiana
Ed Phillips has laid out very eloquently how more federal spending to create new American technologies and infrastructure repairs through massive infusion of monies, would be a win-win situation bringing us out of recession and providing enough taxes to pay off the rather insignificant debt we now have. You need to read his articles.
President Obama is privileged to much more information than you and I. His military and intelligence sources had given him information that he is unable to share with the Congress because it would compromise the advantage that he has as commander-in-chief. I will state again that he is very intelligent and knows that he must have the Congress behind him before he makes any moves. By telegraphing that he would spend two days massively destroying every inch of the Assad regime's military superiority is striking fear in those who are “laughing” at his indecision. As someone who has been through it yourself, “shock and awe” is not something to be desired. I have heard that Iran has already planned a retaliation if that happens. I'm sure that Israel already has plans to retaliate before Iran retaliates.
Nobody wants more war in the Middle East… Not even the president. I think by making a bold stand, by playing a game of poker with the American people, that the Syrian regime is getting the message. When he sees that the American people and the rest of the world are against military action, Obama will stand down. He's no fool.
But… Sometime in the near future, when the time is right, Obama will use his constitutional power to make some very incisive military moves that will have little or no collateral damage and effectively cut off the Syrian regime at its knees. Syria will have to make the first move, though––like another atrocity we won't know about until the strike is over. That's how Obama got Osama bin Laden and Bush didn't.
Your selective memory is wrong. We ended the greatest conflict in the 20th-century, World War II, without putting boots on the ground in Japan. But we scared the bejeebies out of the most resolute people in the world and gave us reason never to use such destruction again.
Ron