- Posted September 8, 2013 by
Obama: In Search of a Legacy - Syria?
On Monday, September 9, 2013, two days before the anniversary of 9/11 and the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, President Barack Obama sits down in separate interviews with six news networks. The President will answer questions and attempt to persuade both public and congressional opinion to favor his quest for a military strike on the regime of President Bashar al Assad in Syria for the use of chemical weapons.
The case the President must make is that it is in the interest of the US of A and of the world to punish Assad and his government for use of chemical weapons in putting down an insurrection in that war-torn nation. Though at this time, the question remains unanswered as to who actually used chemicals in the latest attack which killed more than a thousand people including over 400 children.
It is definitive that chemicals were used, but by whom remains cloudy.
On Tuesday night the President will address the nation as he continues to build his case for the US to go it alone if necessary and interfere in an internal domestic dispute in a sovereign nation. Whether the President can sway unconvinced lawmakers or the public is in much doubt.
In the background to this unfolding story is the fact that the President is in his fifth year with only three left in his final term in office. This is the time when presidents begin to think about their legacy.
How will the country and the world remember the years in which the President was not only the chief executive officer of the US, but also leader of the free world.
When the President took office, he already had one world accolade under his belt. He was winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.
The prize was awarded, so it seems, primarily on his opposition to the war in Iraq and his message of hope and change along with forging peace around the world. Now, many across the globe are questioning the wisdom in that award. The President had to face reporters in Sweden who queried him on that award and how he has acted since that time.
This brings me to an op-ed I wrote over a year ago on June 12, 2012 when I opined that the President may be remembered by history as Obama - The Warring President. The views and facts I presented then seem even more relevant to the discussion today as the Congress wrestles with whether to give the President authorization for a military strike against Syria.
At the time, this is what I wrote:
There is increasing evidence that President Barack Obama may very well be remembered by history as the warring president.
Even though the President campaigned in 2008 on ending the war in Iraq, since taking office, under his direction the US has been involved in a number of military actions in a number of countries.
Yes, following the plan and agreement worked out by the Administration of President George W. Bush, Obama oversaw the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and the end of the decade long war. At the same time, the President directed a surge in the number of boots on the ground in Afghanistan.
Troops have been sent to various countries in Africa during his watch. The President was in charge of engagement with Libya which toppled Mohamar Ghadfi. The President ordered a clandestine attack within an ally's borders which took out Osama Bin Laden in his compound in Pakistan.
Drone attacks have continued to pound and take out Taliban and other terrorist leaders and camps in Pakistan. Drone attacks have launched in increasing numbers in Yemen against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
There is talk of eventual military action against Iran to prevent the development of a nuclear weapon. Some claim that the US has already committed an act of war with covert virus attacks on Iran's internet and computer grid.
Syria looms as trouble for the President. Plans have been developed, though listed as a last resort, for military intervention in Syria.
The point I made about Syria in June, 2012, today seems to be coming to fruition.
The questions I raised in that article appear to be as valid today as when I first raised the concern over a year ago.
I'll close with the same ending as I did in June, 2012:
How many more "police actions" or "conflicts" will the US of A become embroiled?
Will history see the President as warring?
From the Cornfield, is the increase in military and covert activity in the interest of national security or is it more a political motivation?
Can the US of A continue to involve itself in military actions around the world?
Can the reputation of the US of A stand up to global scrutiny when being cast as more of a "cowboy" nation ready to ride into any conflict than when Bush was president?