Some American politicians actually think using diplomacy makes us look weak
I don’t quite understand what’s so wrong about using diplomacy in Syria, but apparently many DC politicians and media pundits do. President Obama recently gave a speech on Syria that many were expecting to be his war manifesto. Surprisingly the speech did not push for all out military action, but was rather conciliatory in terms of its emphasis on diplomacy.
It seems with of Syria, diplomacy might be making some type of impact. The threat of the use of force by the United States against Syria has forced the Assad regime to rethink its strategy. The fear and use of this fear has also pushed the Russians to try and sway Assad into giving up his chemical weapons. This is a good thing in my opinion.
For one, when it comes to international relations, diplomacy is usually always the preferred option. If there is ever a diplomatic solution to an international crisis, then as reasonable human beings that approach should always take primacy over war.
President Obama’s address seemed to back off the war rhetoric as the Russians have engaged the Syrian regime with a plan aimed at getting rid of its chemical weapons.
The majority of the American populace is also against military action in Syria, so Obama is following public opinion to a certain extent as well. As American attitudes toward war have dwindled, it seems Obama also had to take this attitude into account. This contributed to Obama seeking a diplomatic route to Syria rather than a military one.
Many Washington politicians and media pundits, however, gave a rather nonsensical reaction to Obama’s speech. Mainly Republican politicians and media names have roundly criticized Obama for his seeking the diplomatic approach.
I think overall Obama made the right call by actually listening to the American public on the matter and being careful not to make a bad situation worse. Yet for Republicans in Congress are outraged that Obama is not choosing the military option. As if they had any credibility on the subject.
Those same Republicans who beat the drum for a disastrous war in Iraq are now pushing for one in Syria. Its no wonder Obama didn’t take their advice. We should always seek a diplomatic response to a crisis, there is no reason to rush into a military action without making sure other options are available.
In the case of the Assad’s regime’s chemical weapons, the threat of such a war has forced a diplomatic route by Assad. If Assad has to choose between giving up its chemical weapons or risk being attacked by the US military, the former sounds like the preferred option.
Supposedly the reason we were to strike Syria was because of these chemical weapons. Now that Assad might potentially give them up, it seems hard then to justify and intervention. But even though Assad might give them up, Republicans (and some Democrats) in Congress still want to stage a strike on Syria. To prove what? That we can? According to some, finding a diplomatic solution makes us weak and some go so far to say that Obama got played by his Russian counterpart.
Obama has made the right move by letting diplomacy in Syria play out rather than rush into another senseless war. Though our military-industrial complex and its supporters in Congress are pushing hard for an attack, the diplomatic solution (if viable) should always be top priority.