Follow by Email

Saturday, September 19, 2015

Washington Post Editorial, "More waffling on Syria": Obama's Greatest Failure?



In an editorial entitled "More waffling on Syria," The Washington Post tells us of "the failure of the United States to back up its objectives with consequential action" in Syria. WaPo writes:

"At the root of what surely will be seen as the greatest failure of his presidency is Mr. Obama’s refusal to commit to a coherent plan for ending President Bashar al-Assad’s murderous assault on his own people. . . . Had Mr. Obama accepted the recommendation of his national security team in 2012 to arm and train Syrian opposition forces, or the many proposals to create safe zones where civilians could be protected from the regime’s barbaric barrel bomb attacks, much of the subsequent carnage, not to mention the flood of refugees now pouring into Europe, could have been prevented."

Syria will be seen as the greatest failure of Obama's presidency? In fact, I think WaPo's editorial board is being unduly optimistic. Wait and see what happens when Iran abandons the nuclear deal brokered by Obama and makes a mad dash its first atomic bomb.

And then there's also that "small" matter involving US federal government debt, which will reach some $19 trillion by the time Obama leaves office. Yes, Obama bankrupted the United States, but no one is willing to admit that the emperor has no clothes.

The kind folks at The Washington Post haven't seen anything yet.

1 comment:

  1. Some might think #44's greatest failure is yet to be revealed, e.g., Libya, or bringing back the race wars of 1968, or today's news threat: Taliban steals a Pakistani nuke ...

    It is his greatest failure at the moment, because Europe is now affected, and the Senate Dems on the Armed Services Committee exploded over Syria last Wednesday, using same words in WaPo, and Der Speigel:

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/many-syrian-refugees-fleeing-civil-war-have-lost-faith-in-a-solution-a-1052576.html

    "...Two years ago, it still would have been possible for the West to intervene on behalf of the moderate rebels. But skeptics feared that intervention in Syria would lead to more violence and deaths, the triumph of jihadist radicals and the collapse of public order. All of these things have occurred -- not because, but despite the fact that the West did not intervene.

    If US President Barack Obama had ordered air strikes on the military's nerve centers following Assad's poison gas attacks on the Damascus suburbs, the regime probably would have collapsed. At the time, intelligence services were already observing efforts by officers and soldiers to defect. But Obama apparently was unwilling to risk an overthrow of Assad and the resulting power vacuum.

    But what could have been worse than what happened after that? In September 2013, IS had not yet begun its victory march, around 130,000 people who are now dead were still alive, and it would have been much easier to preserve the entire country than it is today. ..."


    enough.

    ReplyDelete