Editor,
Recently President Obama gave a speech saying that he will consult with Congress before launching a military strike against the Syrian regime. This was followed by a candid statement claiming that he does not need any lawmaker’s permission to do so.
Preceding those contradictory statements, on Aug. 20, 2012, President Obama said that if the president of Syria used chemical weapons he would be crossing a “red line” which would require a U.S. response. For over a year it has been unclear what that response would be. This left many around the world to wonder: Would the president attack Syria with punitive action for using chemical weapons?
Secretary of State John Kerry, Speaker of the House John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi have all expressed support for attacking Syria, which would repute the use of chemical weapons around the world.
However, when one looks closely at U.S. interventions, specifically in civil wars around the world, one sees that the U.S. only exacerbates and worsens war situations when intervening.
This has been the case in the civil wars of Colombia, Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Cambodia, to name a few cases. In every case the countries involved spiraled into murder, famine, further atrocities and eventual protracted U.S. interventions.
President Obama says he does not intend a regime change, leaving one to believe that he just wants to punish Bashar Assad. This irresolute action leaves no assurances for the anti-Assad resistance, and puts the United States on their side, which includes Al-Qaeda forces.
Previous presidents took punitive actions with the dictator Saddam Hussein. Hussein was punished, by U.S. bombs, for trying to assassinate one of our presidents, George H.W. Bush; for building centrifuges used in producing enriched uranium for nuclear weapons; for invading Kuwait and also for using chemical weapons.
All of those punitive bombs led to the eventual “boots on the ground” invasion of Iraq. Everyone around the world then witnessed how that war materialized, which was an outright travesty.
Some say Obama made a gaffe by painting the “red line” and now is “saving face” by prodding support for a potential attack. If this were the case, my advice to Obama would be to apologize for his obtuse remarks and stay out of the business of intervening in that civil war.
No one should die to simply save Obama’s face.
Jose Flores
UNM student
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
