Decisive Action. Maybe. Sort Of

Crisis averted last night, I suppose. 'Peace in our time' as an infamous prime minister said after meeting a madman seven decades ago.

One thing that should be clear about this entire fiasco is that the Syrian government in place has and will continue to destroy property and kill people in the civil war. If they don't, they will lose and be destroyed themselves.

The necessary distraction has been created for them to remain. The world will focus on a probably false-commitment of agreeing to give up some of their arsenal (chemical munitions) while the Russians strengthen the position of Assad and his henchmen. Advantage, barbarians.

Two years ago, Obama said that this dictator "must go." Now it seems probable that our current president will be gone first.

I listened to a lot of commentary on both sides after Obama's speech last night. Here is one thing the president's supporters seemed unable to explain: If our position is righteous (implicit) and congressional approval is necessary (stated by the president), then why not have a vote anyway? An approval of force resolution wouldn't automatically make bombs fall out of the sky. Obama could win the legislative approval and still choose not to strike. He could say that thanks to John Kerry's diplomacy, cool heads have won the day. The country would be relieved that no one dies with our weapons. The right would think we still look strong. The left would be happy with peace at any price. Everyone would win. Well, everyone except the average Syrian.

The sad answer to this question is that Barack Obama could not convince the majority of Congress to trust him with a military strike. Not in this place. Not at this time. So we are left with what we had last night. A fairly persuasive argument to punish a foreign government for very bad behavior. Just not right away. Maybe soon. Or never. Hard to say.

Watching the president's speech for the first half was admittedly, inspiring. Then, it seems as if, in the middle of it all, we were told, "You know what? Hold on a second. Let me get back to you on all this..." Andrea Mitchell of MSNBC finally got off the media hamster wheel for a moment by suggesting the whole thing was a little "schizophrenic."


This will change to the other direction, someday. Maybe by a future president who is much more averse to tying his own policies in knots through delay, indecisiveness and abject ignorance. The tragedy is that this future leader may be wrong next time but being desperate not to look weak like a certain predecessor, he or she chooses to lead us rapidly into a genuine abyss.



“Almost all things have been found out, but some have been forgotten.” - Aristotle