By Rachel Alexander
Monday, September 09, 2013
Who would have guessed that liberal Democrat Barack Obama
would end up being one of the biggest warmongering presidents in history. It is
suspected by many that his decision to militarily intervene in Syria is being
done to deflect the public’s attention away from Obamacare, the IRS targeting
of conservatives and the NSA surveillance scandal. Intervening on behalf of the
Syrian rebels is unpopular because it is not clear that the rebels, who have
been infiltrated by al Qaeda affiliates and Iranian-backed militias, are any
better than President Bashar al-Assad's Shiite-controlled government, and
toppling the regime may lead to instability to the detriment of Israel.
A Gallup poll found that going into Syria is more
unpopular than any similar conflict since the airstrikes on Kosovo under
President Bill Clinton 15 years ago. Only 36 percent of Americans support the
intervention, compared to 51 percent who oppose it. Pope Francis is so opposed
to military intervention, he led Catholics around the world in a day of fasting
for peace in Syria. British voters are overwhelmingly against military action,
with 47 percent opposing it and only 19 percent in favor. Seventy conservative
Tories in British Parliament refused to vote for military action last week, and
the legislation failed.
Obama claims that 10 countries who signed a vague
statement about military action at the G-20 summit last week means they back
his plans to invade Syria. However, Britain clearly opposes it, and Russia
asserts that only four of those countries support the invasion. If Congress
does not approve military action in a vote shortly, Obama appears ready to go
ahead with the strikes anyway. This is even more disturbing since Russian
president Vladimir Putin announced that his country will provide assistance to
the Syrian government if the U.S. militarily intervenes on behalf of the
rebels, reviving a dangerous U.S.-Russian rivalry.
Obama’s plans to invade Syria have been muddled, vague,
and impossible to follow. John Kass of The Chicago Tribune described it best,
The problem is, Obama's war plans keep changing, and they're rather ambiguous. Axelrod says the dog has caught the car, but there's no telling when the car will take off again, twisting and turning and leaving that poor dog dizzy. Obama's plan for Syria is almost like Obamacare: We're not supposed to know what we're getting until after he gets the votes.
Obama has increased military action in many ways to
levels far beyond George W. Bush. One senior military official told The
Washington Post that the Obama administration has given the green light for
"things that the previous administration did not."
In 2010, Obama increased the presence of Special Forces
from 60 countries to 75 countries, mostly done in secret. There are now 4,000
Americans in the Special Forces in foreign countries. Each year, he asks for
billion dollar increases to the Special Operations budget.
His military expansion has gone far beyond Afghanistan
and Iraq, where the goal has expanded from regime change to nation building.
Under Obama, troop levels in Afghanistan were increased to 17,000 in 2009. The
verdict is still out on whether that was a wise intervention.
Drone strikes, controversial due to civilian casualties
and eliminating low-level militants that could provide valuable information,
have massively increased under Obama, especially in Pakistan. In 2009, Obama
started covert drone strikes in Yemen. In 2011, although a U.S. strike
successfully killed radical Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, it also took
out three U.S. citizens.
Drone strikes began in Somalia in June of 2011,
escalating the proxy war. In April of this year, the Obama administration
announced that it would be sending military aid directly to Somalia. This has
many worried, considering what happened to U.S. troops there in the 1993 Black
Hawk Down incident, where 18 U.S. troops were killed after militia fighters
shot down their two helicopters. The administration has already been sending
millions of dollars to six African countries to combat terrorism in Somalia.
Obama ordered U.S. military strikes on Libya in 2011 that
took out dictator Muammar Qadhafi’s regime. Many questioned this move, since
Qadhafi had retreated from the despotic days of the Lockerbie bombing. He
denounced the 9-11 attacks and was removed from the U.S. list of state sponsors
of terrorism in 2006. Removing him from power has allowed the Muslim
Brotherhood to take over the country. Many members of Congress objected to the
strikes on the basis that Obama did not have constitutional authority. The 1973
War Powers Act, which was passed in response to the Vietnam War, requires a
president to obtain congressional approval within 90 days of sending the
military into a conflict.
In 2009, Obama signed an agreement to station U.S.
personnel at seven military bases in Colombia, ostensibly to combat terrorism
and narcotraffickers. About the only military action Obama has taken that most
can agree upon was the U.S. military operation by Navy SEALs that ultimately
killed Osama bin Laden.
Obama’s domestic policy related to the terrorism has been
equally aggressive, if not questionable. He supports the NSA spying program. He
encouraged federal employees to spy on each other and report suspicious
behavior under the Insider Threat Program. He defended intrusive body scans and
pat downs at airports. He never shut down Guantanamo as he promised to do
during his first year as president.
It is not that all of these efforts are wrong. Most of
the public does not have enough information to make a fully informed assessment
about each of these scenarios. But what we have learned from incidents like the
IRS targeting of conservatives is that Obama cannot be trusted. Obama’s
military strikes, particularly his proposed invasion of Syria, are reminiscent
of President Clinton’s two-week bombing campaign against the Bosnian Serbs in
1995. Since both the Serbs and the Albanians had committed atrocities against
each other going back hundreds of years, it was a bit arbitrary to choose one
side over the other. Ultimately, the NATO-led campaign has been a dubious
success, as feuding between the Serbs and Albanians continued after the interim
government was set up in 1999.
Clinton very likely ordered the strikes on Kosovo in
order to distract the public from his affair with Monica Lewinsky. Right before
the affair became public, the movie Wag the Dog was released, about a president
who constructs a fake war with Albania in order to divert attention from his
sex scandal.
Immediately after the Lewinsky affair became public,
Clinton ordered the bombing of the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.
According to The New York Times, “American officials have acknowledged over the
years that the evidence that prompted President Clinton to order the missile
strike on the Shifa plant was not as solid as first portrayed. Indeed,
officials later said that there was no proof that the plant had been
manufacturing or storing nerve gas, as initially suspected by the Americans, or
had been linked to Osama bin Laden, who was a resident of Khartoum in the
1980's.”
The U.S. State Department Bureau of Intelligence and
Research issued a report in 1999 critical of the attack and the link to bin Laden.
Werner Daum, the German ambassador to Sudan from 1996 to 2000, speculates that
the destruction of the factory caused “several tens of thousands of deaths of
Sudanese."
Obama claims that military intervention against Syria is
justified, since the government used chemical weapons against its own people.
Yet that was precisely the reason George W. Bush received so much criticism for
the Iraq War. Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the Kurds, killing
far more Iraqi people than the 1,400 that have been killed from chemical
weapons in Syria. The left tried very hard to make George W. Bush appear to be
a warmongering president. Don’t hold your breath for them to do that with
Obama.
No comments:
Post a Comment