- Posted September 10, 2013 by
District of Columbia
This iReport is part of an assignment:
Are chemical weapons a ‘red line’?
The 2 Biggest Losers in this Syrian Debate
With the recent developments in this Syrian Conflict, with Syria agreeing to U.N. Inspectors and the destruction of its entire chemical weapons stockpile. Two of the Biggest losers in this Syrian debate have emerged.
Biggest Loser #1 - The Syrian people. As the Syrian Conflict or War drags on the only true victims are the innocent men women and children caught in the middle who are just trying to survive. The atrocities being committed on both sides of the conflict only further the deep divide among the people. It sets up blood feuds and hatred among the different religious and ethnic factions. After this conflict is resolved no doubt retaliatory actions will be taken by the winning party which will lead to more blood shed and the loss of innocent lives.
Second Biggest Loser is the Republicans - Here is why... First the Republicans have railed against Obama for not taking decisive military action and bumbling this whole issue. Yet when Obama sought Congressional Approval it was the Republicans who overwhelmingly said no. They claimed that getting involved would help the terrorists who are part of the free Syrian Army, that a strike alone would do nothing, and third because the American people overwhelmingly oppose any action being taken. Yet now that Syria has agreed to U.N. inspections and has agreed to have all of their weapons removed and destroyed the Republicans still try and bash Obama.
What they fail to realize is the fact that Obama played them like a violin. Obama had no intention of getting involved in another military action. Obama counted on the Republicans to do what they always do and that is oppose any thing Obama supports.
Now that the Republicans have spoken saying "No" to military action they now own any thing that may occur in the future. If Assad's regime uses more WMD's or gives them to terrorist groups Obama can legally say the Republicans tied his hands and refused to support him. Remember the Republicans have publically declared that a Crongressional House vote would fail.
Another thing that will hurt the Republicans is if Syria does fully comply with the U.N. and turns over all its chemical weapons Obama can say that without firing a shot he got the Syrians to capitulate. Remember it was the Republicans who pushed the U.S. to war with Iraq because of WMD's. It was President Bush and Republicans who said if Saddam would agree to U.N. inspectors and the complete destruction of the WMD's in their possession that the U.S. would stop its attack on Iraq. If it was a good choice then it is reasonable to assert its a good choice now.
Also, now that the U.N. is taking a great part in resolving international conflicts it defeats the Republicans argument that the U.S. should withdraw from the U.N.. If this diplomatic solution works then the world will look for more leadership to come from the United Nations. Americans will demand U.N. intervention instead of American involvement alone.
When Senator McConnell took to the floor of the Senate to blast the President he made statements that conflicted with each other proving my point. He said at one point Obama was a reluctant warrior and then said he was against military action. If Obama proves he is not a reluctant warrior by attacking the Republicans would decry Obama for going against Congress and the American people. If he doesn't attack then Obama is weak a "reluctant warrior". In fact Tea Party Republicans have threaten to impeach President Obama if he acts without or against Congressional support.
This shows how defunct the Republicans are in their thinking. Its clear that no matter what the President does they want to be able to come out like they always have and trash the President. Again, this also plays into the President's hand proving once again to American Voters that instead of being reasonable that Rebulican hatred of Obama is the overriding reason why they vote "No" on anything Obama supports or requests from congress.
Remember it was not too long ago that Republicans demanded President Obama preemptively strike against Iran to stop them from acquiring WMD's because it was a threat to U.S. National Security and Israel.
What the Republicans fail to see is now Obama has set a precedent that will require future Presidents to seek not only congressional approval but also public support from the American people. Gone are the days of Cowboy diplomacy the so called "shoot first and ask questions later" which the Republicans have cherished for years.
The Biggest winner in this whole thing? President Obama.