A Deeper Look at Obama and His Inaction in the Syrian Civil War: my editorial post on an editorial p
Since this is an editorial post on an editorial post, I will be writing this in more colloquial terms, ditching the standard five paragraph structure. I am going to be honest with you. I am an Obama supporter. I have seen him rebuild a nation that was recovering from one of the worst economic successions since The Great Depression. I have seen him inspire generations of engineers and computer scientists through his special endorsement of Hour of Code 2014. I have seen him broken, shattered, devastated by the events of Sandy Hook and what he did in secret to help the recovering families. I have watched his seven years of presidency and the amount of stress that was pressed upon him. Obama, as the president of the United States, but more importantly as a human, has seen the world in turmoil and done what he believed was the best coarse of action to protect our national interest and save lives. I respect President Obama and therefore, I must take a deeper look at the policies that may or may not have prolonged the Syrian Civil War.
Peter Wehner wrote an article on the issue that I am discussing today on November 27th, 2015, two weeks after the Paris attacks. Wehner presented the facts well. In 2012, President Obama vetoed plans to arm Syrian rebel groups despite his former secretaries of Defense and State, his C.I.A. director and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff strongly urging him to do so. Obama has continued his headstrong promise on refusing to put American soldiers in Syria and not to pursue a prolonged air campaign. In fact, he refused to declare safe havens or no-fly zones. He wanted minimal American involvement in another Middle Eastern country but he also wanted some involvement. Maybe it was just enough involvement to appease the international community and to say that the US will always help out in humanitarian crises. But when Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on its own citizens, even when Obama stated that this particular action will cross a “red line”, nothing really happened. Water Russell Mead wrote in The American Interest, “This [refugee] crisis is in large part the direct consequence of President Obama’s decision to stand aside and watch Syria burn.” As a result, 13.5 million people in Syria need humanitarian assistance. Half of the 4.6 million refugees are children. Between 2 to 3 million Syrian children are not attending school, reversing 10 years of progress in education for Syrian children which could essentially cripple an entire generation’s ability to rebuild Syria.
Perhaps the President was fearful of offending the pro-Assad Iranian government in order to close the Iranian nuclear arms deal. Maybe he just didn’t wish for another repeat of Iraq or Afghanistan. He wanted to play safe, to not support another American involvement with the potential to lose hundreds if not thousands of American troops. Instead of jumping in with two feet into a Middle Eastern country like former President Bush had done, President Obama has decided to look at the world politics, the delicate situation with Russia, the nuclear fear from Iran, the allies in the Middle East, and proceeded with caution. You don’t fight a war without a clear intent to win. And in order to win, you must have the right timing. We as the United States of America cannot and must not act hastily.
Though the facts on the current situation on Syria are grim, I do not agree with a full scale invasion. This is a war for the Syrian people and it should be fought by the Syrian people. Instead, Obama should begin the process of issuing no-fly zones and special demilitarized zones for humanitarian aid to flow through. Granted, these are only temporary solutions to an increasingly complicated situation, there is a path out. We just have to be patient.
http://www.worldvision.org/news-stories-videos/syria-war-refugee-crisis
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/28/opinion/president-obamas-hypocrisy-on-syria.html
