Carter and Obama have both weakened the US superpower
By Nile Gardiner
Billed as a game-changer on Syria, the President’s White House address
landed with a thud that could be heard as far away as Damascus. Barack
Obama has a huge credibility problem on Syria and on foreign policy in
general, and Tuesday night’s speech will do nothing to help that. As Washington Post
columnist Charles Krauthammer put it on Fox News, it was “one of the
most odd presidential speeches ever delivered,” with no clear-cut
strategy laid out, while urging Congress to delay a vote on the use of
force against Assad’s regime.
In effect, Obama farmed out US foreign policy in the Middle East yet
again to the Russians, appealing for time to consider the Russian
proposal for securing Syria’s chemical weapons, a ruse described
accurately by the Telegraph’s Con Coughlin as “a massive red herring.' He
also used his address to take swipes at the Bush Administration over
the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which it should be noted, were
waged with the backing of Congress and the American people, as well as
large international coalitions on a scale that the Obama administration
can only dream of.
This was a desperate speech from a president who has dug himself into
a hole after carelessly drawing a red line in the sand, and then
finding himself in the position of actually having to do something about
it. Obama knew full well he was heading for a humiliating defeat in
Congress, with just 26 Members of the House of Representatives
confirmed as supporting him on Syrian strikes. This speech was above
all a delaying tactic, designed to give him breathing space while his
advisers think of how to get him out of this mess. In the meantime the
White House is content to let the Russians, staunch ally of Assad, call
the shots on the international stage, with Washington leading from
behind.
The American people are overwhelmingly opposed to President Obama’s
plans for a military intervention in Syria, what John Kerry likes to
refer to as an “unbelievably small” strike against Assad. Just 29 percent of US voters back Obama’s handling of the Syria crisis according to a new poll this
week. This speech will do nothing to assuage their concerns. The
president was simply unable to explain in any convincing way why a US
attack on Syria is in the direct national interest of the United States.
Nor could he explain how airstrikes would actually help bring Syria’s
civil war to an end or weaken Assad’s brutal regime in Damascus. Obama
was also in denial about the nature of some of the rebel groups
operating in Syria, identifying Islamists as “extremists,” while
downplaying the growing influence of al-Qaeda in the country. He also
made no mention of mounting attacks by rebels on Christians in Syria, a
major cause for concern on Capitol Hill.
In essence, and this was amply displayed tonight, Barack Obama has no
big picture strategy on Syria, or the wider Middle East, and is bereft
of a clear game plan. His speech was also a sea of contradictions. He
talked about deploying American military might but has no intention of
delivering a decisive blow. He paid lip service to the ideal of American
exceptionalism, but is happy to kowtow to Moscow. He urged Congress to
support his approach, but wants them to wait before they vote. For these
were the words of an exceptionally weak and indecisive president,
one who seems to be making up policy on the hoof, as he stumbles and
bumbles along on the world stage, with his hapless Secretary of State in
tow.
How different to the halcyon days of Ronald Reagan, a man who led the
world’s superpower with strength and conviction. The Gipper knew the
meaning of American leadership, especially at times of crisis.
Unfortunately President Obama can only dream of holding a candle to
Reagan’s achievements, and at present is even outperforming Jimmy Carter
as the most feeble US president of modern times.
No comments:
Post a Comment