We all know President Obama does not want America to lead the world; but is it possible he is also standing in the way when other western allies wish to fill the gaps? So far, Obama has not only ignored all international pleas to stop the carnage and ethnic cleansing in Syria but it seems he is also standing firmly against others interfering because, according to a European source intimately involved in Syrian affairs, all the US diplomatic signals to countries abroad are to stand down on Syria.
Why would the President of the United States set his policy on Syria to mirror the policies of our enemies? I can understand if his aim is to protect US servicemen and assets, but asking others not to interfere is strange.
This weekend, the government of PM Cameron expressed outrage over the bloodbath in Syria. In an article entitled “Britain Urges New International Action After Syria Massacre“, British ME minister Alistair Burt said “it would be an atrocity on a new scale, requiring unequivocal condemnation from the entire international community.” He also highlighted “the urgent need for international action to bring an end to the violence, end this culture of impunity and hold to account those responsible for these terrible acts.” Condemnation is not exactly the word the British intend to say when speaking of “action”.
Further, the new French Government of President Hollande is seeking a No-Fly Zone over Syria even if it means the west must embark on a unilateral action and without seeking approval from the UN’s flawed system. Other countries have, in one form or another, pressured the US to do something about the tragic events in Syria. This, in addition to human rights organizations and women’s organizations concerned about the barbaric killing and/or raping of Syrian women by the Assad Shabbeeha militia.
But Obama has remained silent on Syria as if our President is hiding something. I wish he would at least ask himself this question: What would President Clinton do? If you cannot learn from past Presidents from your own Party, the country is in trouble.
Is Obama asking our allies to protect Syria and Iran because he remembers the terror of both countries against US troops in Iraq, which ultimately, amongst other things, defeated the Republicans in the 2008 election and led to Obama securing the presidency. Capitulating to Syria and Iran simply provides an added level of security to Obama’s bid for re-election.
Or is he simply protecting the two regimes because he realizes that both can still do much damage in the region with their terror? In this case, some adviser should whisper in his ear that no matter what the US does, Syria and Iran will always kill Americans. No doubt, their threats must be taken seriously and every effort must be made to keep our fighting men and women out of harm’s way. But succumbing totally to terrorist nations is not the answer either. Syria and Iran cannot be allowed to formulate US foreign policy by capitulating to their demands as Obama seems to be doing.
There must be a bona fide explanation of why Obama is standing in the way when it comes to saving Syrians from the Assad terror or helping the Iranian people defeat the Mullahs. It is hard to imagine either country has not taken advantage of the US elections coming up and the timing of the Syrian Revolution to pressure Obama. How else can one explain he won’t let any country interfere against Syrian or Iranian terror. Honestly, sometimes I have to rub my eyes for fear of seeing Putin standing in front of that White House microphone setting US foreign policy.
Obama’s silence on Syria is simply illogical; but knowing now that he is forcing other allies not to embark on their own initiatives to save Syrians suddenly adds a new dimension to Obama’s foreign policy priorities and goals.
Our President may not want America to lead the world but this does not seem to stop him from trying to lead it personally.
It might just be that we have the strange case of Dr. Obama and Mr. Hyde in the White House.