Obama drew a line in the sand concerning Syria and its use of chemical weapons against US sponsored al Qaeda rebels. Although the evidence is not conclusive, John Kerry has publicly stated that Assad used chemical weapons in Damascus resulting in the deaths of over 1000 men, women and children. The United Kingdom and Germany will not support military action against Syria at this time. To no one’s surprise, France’s position changes according to the wind and Turkey has been muzzled by Putin.
So the question is whether Obama will attack Syria unilaterally and start World War III to pacify his ego or will the United States take the unlikely step of following the Constitution prior to the declaration of war by Congress?
David DeGerolamo
White House ready for solo strike on Syria as US allies and influence fade
The shock Thursday, Aug. 29, of Britain’s David Cameron parliamentary defeat – thereby knocking America’s foremost partner out of the coming strike against Syria – highlighted public opposition to the operation in America and criticism in the top US military command.
The White House hastened to stress that America, while still interested in engaging allies, was ready to act unilaterally without UN or allied support.
Nonetheless, the Syrian conflict after nearly three years continues to be covered in confusion, much of it generated by the Obama administration’s conflicting policies.
After resolute condemnation of the Assad regime’s “heinous crime” of using chemical weapons against its people, the president opted for a low-key, practically painless military strike against Syria. The Syria ruler would be able to wave his hands in a gesture of victory, followed by Vladmir Putin. Iran’s leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would say, I told you so, the United States is a paper tiger and will never attack our nuclear program.
By voting for opposition Labor’s motion against UK involvement in military action in Syria, the British parliament not only shattered Obama’s multinational coalition for Syria; it struck at the heart of the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance (NATO), the historic bulwark of Western security since the last world war.
The alliance’s fortunes have faded progressively under the vacillating foreign and security polices of President Barack Obama.
