On August 31 President Obama revealed to the world that when it comes to executive decision-making he has apparently taken a page from the book used by President Bush. Just as Bush justified interventionism in the economy by proclaiming that he must “abandon free market principles to save the free market” so too does Obama likewise make the oxymoronic case that in order to maintain peace we must go to war.
Our “leaders” are only as powerful as the support we give them; upon its withdrawal they are as but infants.
So, it is off to war in Syria then. The reasoning Mr. Obama laid out was one part demagoguery, two parts fear mongering. He opened with the age-old politician’s ploy of invoking “the children”. He thusly reminds us of the deaths of several hundred children in the recent Syrian gas attacks. However this example is somewhat hypocritical considering the US government has killed at least a hundred children with its overseas drone strikes alone, to say nothing of the children “gassed to death by their own government” at Waco Texas in 1993. Say what you will of the leaders at Waco, certainly their children did not deserve to be burned alive by their own government.
He then segues into the same tired justification trotted out for all preemptive wars: the risk of what “might” come to pass. If we do nothing, then: it might make a mockery of prohibitions on chemical weapons, it might endanger our allies, it might lead to more chemical weapons. Might, might, might. Here’s a “might” for you Mr. President. If we keep our nose out of other country’s business then they “might” just figure out how to solve their own problems, without our help. The losing side “might” not blame us for their loss, in which case the US “might” not once again become the target of homicidal rage.
Secure in his reasoning, he smugly asserts that he is confident the US can hold the Syrian government accountable for their actions. Since a necessary condition for being accountable to some other entity is being subservient to said entity, then clearly this President (and his predecessors) views all other countries as being subservient to US authority. The United States, in their minds, is not so much a country as it is a global empire. And an empire must keep its quarrelsome protectorates in line. In the American Empire all countries, companies and individuals are accountable to the King or his Court, err, I mean the President or Congress. Let us hope China never decides they need to hold the US government accountable for its actions by bombing US civilians into the Stone Age.
But then, there was a glimmer of hope. Mr. Obama graciously acknowledged that even though he’s sure he is King and can do whatever he desires, he’s a nice guy after all and does have that annoying Nobel Peace Prize to live up to. So, he’s going to make us a deal. He shall deign to permit Congress to debate and vote on whether we should bomb Syria. How quaint – he’s going to actually follow the Constitution for once (which clearly states war may only be authorized by Congress (Article 1, Section 8)). I wonder how he’ll proceed if the vote doesn’t go his way. If that comes to pass then we will once and for all discover whether we have elected a President or a Führer.
Ok, enough bellyaching about what we shouldn’t do. What should we do? A humanitarian evacuation. Send our naval fleet to retrieve every civilian in Syria who wishes to escape the crossfire of a civil war and immigrate to the US or any other country that will permit them entry. Without a population to support them both the rebels and the Assad government will crumble from within. Our “leaders” are only as powerful as the support we give them; upon its withdrawal they are as but infants.
Pingback: Politicians Are Powerless | Michigan Standard
Congrats on being picked up by Lew Rockwell today. Great article.
Thanks! Glad to hear you like the article.
The Constitution says that the Congress must declare war, not authorize it. If you don’t know the difference, why should your public servants?
I think you’re splitting hairs over semantics. “Declaring” war confers onto the President, as commander in chief, the “authority” to execute that war insofar as the President may only execute a war when we are in a state of war… there exists no such authority with the President if we are not in a state of war. So yeah, the Constitution says “declare”, not authorize, but I really don’t see how that changes in any meaningful way what I wrote.
Pingback: Whom Would Jesus Bomb? - Unofficial Network
Pingback: Whom Would Jesus Bomb? | Michigan Standard
Never mind with turning the other cheek. We are actually initiating the cheek slapping, and preventing anyone from reaching our cheeks.
We have loads of chemical weapons, and we have used tons of them on Vietnam, and spent Uranium on Iraq. Yet our public, and media is unable to pronounce the word HYPOCRITE.
This Christian nation stuff is almost laughable. If you are unable to have a Christmas tree because of minority screaming against separation of church and state. If you are going to wars in support of Muslims, and Jews but never Christians. If your Education system, and media denigrate only Christianity as it is extra sensitive to Islam, and Judaism; then WE ARE NOT A FREE COUNTRY, OR FREE PEOPLE. Washington have been an occupied territory by anti-Christian forces, and must be liberated before equality of RESPECT TO all faiths can be restored.