Vail Daily letter: The renegade president
September 6, 2013
Richard Carnes is spot-on about American involvement in another war, the prospective war with Syria, since it "crossed the red line." The reiteration of Carnes' declaration that "it is not our fight" brings us to the next enigma — just whose fight is it?
If, for the sake of argument, the Obama White House is right in its assertion that Assad gassed his own people, then answer me this: How will an American strike on Syria aid an already beleaguered population? Just who is the "enemy" that we would be aggressing? How do we discern one side from the other? Is the rebel cause or fight any more meritorious or murderous than the existing Assad regime? Just what is the extant danger or peril that this fight poses for Americans a half a globe away? How many more American lives shall be offered up to prove our point that death via bullets or bombs is more humane than death by poisonous gas? What is the end game from our new war in the Middle East? Will we gain more friends and respect?
When will this renegade president (Obama, not Assad) follow the strictures of the Constitution in declaring "war" on another nation? Or, is that term to be spun into a "humanitarian engagement" under the authority of an "executive order" or "U.N. resolution?" Cameron, of Great Britain, relegated to his Parliament the decision to make war on Syria, and England does not even have a Constitution that required him to do so. An American soldier becomes just as dead under a "humanitarian engagement" as he does under a declared war by the right authority. Bush had his Iraqi war pursuant to executive order. Obama had his Libyan war pursuant to executive order as sanctioned by the U.N. (an irrelevant authority). Factions in Afghanistan and Pakistan are at war with Americans, as we speak, pursuant to an executive policy of "saving face." And now, we have another "face saving" gesture that will engage us in Syria, since it had the audacity to cross Obama's "red line."
Notwithstanding the fear mongering, saber rattling and bellicose puffing from the Pentagon and White House, the only reason by my lights that we would have in attacking Syria would be to fulfill Obama's prior promise that America would take action were his fabled "red line" to be crossed — this is a political reason, pure and simple. It is to transform the "paper tiger" into the real thing. It is the stuff for the mid-term elections. For once, I would ask that Obama break his promise for more war were he snubbed by Syria in its use of certain weapons (gas) against its people. And this should not mean things to do in view of prior promises broken, to wit: Affordable Health Care Act fomenting cheaper premiums, higher quality and move coverage; less unemployment and a healthier economy resulting from more federal stimulation; less fiscal debt because of Democratic restraints; more transparency from his "change;" and so on.
Were Obama to unilaterally endeavor to fulfill his pugnacious promise in attacking Syria (whomever it may be) without the Constitutional authority from Congress, the resultant damage to this nation would be catastrophic, what with the mockery of the rule of law, our present economic insolvency, the further loss of blood and treasury, and disregard for the wishes and best interests of a war-weary American citizenry. Obama's "red line" may very well become his own indictment of impeachment for his intolerance and contempt of Congress, the Constitution and the American people as a whole.