Should America Send Troops To Defend Obama’s Red Line

The red line in the Syrian sand was drawn by President Obama in August of 2012, and it was at that point he committed America to a rendezvous with war in Syria. The president said this nearly as flippantly as he has commented on other pressing domestic or foreign issues, in the hope that his obedient mainstream media would ignore it and move on to shoring up his then re-election bid against challenger Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

Then, there was the dramatic loss and abandonment of the President and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of four Americans in Benghazi’s Consulate in Libya. They were killed by Al-Qaeda insurgents while the president abandoned them for a sit down with singer Beyonce and her husband rapper Jay-Z.

Since then, the president’s red line has moved with each international focus on the Syrian civil war conflict, and in each event, Obama has kicked the can down the road. Several times this year when it was clear that, according to international chemical weapon experts, the deadly weapons of mass destruction were used, Obama feigned responsibility for his comments.

Meanwhile, during his absence on the international stage as America’s Commander in Chief, he looked the other way as 100,000 plus Syrians died in the conflict. He first spoke about regime change in 2011, during the Syrian street demonstrations, but did little else, but played golf and found new and innovative ways to circumvent the U.S. Constitution.

Now, with the world watching Obama could not kick the can down the road because videos surfaced showing 1,400 Syrian victims of Sarin of a gas attack. The horror of seeing women and children murdered by yet unproven rebel or government officials had to move Obama to unavoidable action. Now in front of the entire nation and the world he had to accept responsibility for his own August 2012 words.

Yet, he even managed to dither back and forth about what he said and what he meant. In each incarnation of Obama’s remembrance of how he would punish Syrian President Bashar Assad, he somehow could not make up his mind about sending Assad a well telegraphed love tap of missiles to keep him in line, while the Syrian president moved all of his military assets and chemical stockpiles.

But, underneath Obama’s motives lies the real story, unfortunately for America and its military troops. The real story is that there will quite possibly be an escalation of military action and war to follow, which most likely will end in American boots on the ground.

The Russians through their diplomats have already committed to action on the side of Syria if America attacks without United Nation’s approval, which former President Bush received before going to war against Iraq and Afghanistan.

In fact, according to the Guardian, the Russian government has sent a missile cruiser to the eastern Mediterranean which will soon be accompanied by a Russian destroyer and frigate. The escalation will continue with possible military responses against Israel from Iran.

Obama can lamely claim that he acted against Libya without any international fallout or consternation. Yet, this type of military action by Obama in Syria is different than the Libyan attack by Obama, which the Russians and the Chinese and the Iranian government merely had a passing interest in. All three are major allies of Syria and are standing firm while Obama is essentially isolated from the international community as well.

So where does that leave America and its precious national treasure? Are families, fathers, mothers, children and communities ready and willing to commit the lives of their family members to sacrifice in a war that is over a red line that the president has already erased?

On Wednesday, while speaking at a press conference in Sweden, Obama took his great big verbal eraser and obliterated his previous comments and ownership of the red line in the Syrian sand. According to published news accounts, he stated “I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line.” He even went further to deny any ownership of his own previous statements and concluded that “My credibility is not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line.”

America now has a president who, unlike Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Reagan and both Bushes, is not just afraid to be presidential and stand on his word, but cowers from responsibility.

Therefore, any military action going forward is not to defend the national security of the United States, but to repair the foolish misguided verbal indulgences of a man who denies responsibility.

The nation would be well served for Congress to deny his resolution to go to engage in military action in Syria and let him go it alone. It is not America’s reputation on the line. It is Obama’s!

About the author: Kevin Fobbs

Kevin Fobbs has more than 35 years of wide-ranging experience as a community and tenant organizer, Legal Services outreach program director, public relations consultant, business executive, gubernatorial and presidential appointee, political advisor, widely published writer, and national lecturer. Kevin is co-chair and co-founder of AC-3 (American-Canadian Conservative Coalition) that focuses on issues on both sides of the border between the two countries.

View all articles by Kevin Fobbs

Like Clash? Like Clash.

Leave a comment

Please disable your Ad Blocker to leave a comment.

Trending Now on Clash Daily