I agree with the President's critics of his foreign policy towards the Syrian Civil War.
I understand, he didn't want to get the U.S. involved in another war. The election of Obama over McCain was a
MANDATE to end America's involvement in war in the Middle East.
Most Americans are simply not willing that our country get involved in another war-- especially a war that is not our own.
With that said, the situation in Syria is unacceptable. America's inaction has had
CATASTROPHIC consequences. A quarter of a million dead, thousands more displaced, and the refugee crisis hitting Europe today is a
direct result of America's and even the WORLD'S failure to respond adequately to Bashar Asaad.
You see, Asaad knew that Obama didn't have the will to involve America in another war.
The "Leader of the Free World" has failed Syria and the "Free World" is paying a price for that failure.
What could Obama have done differently?
I don't know.
However, when you have a President who is
patently adverse to war at almost all costs, it limits all of your options when dealing with the crazy, the heartless, and the evil.
Is the Syrian Civil War worth American blood? Was the support ever there for American troops going into Syria?
How about the
money-- was the money ever there for America to get involved in Syria?
President Obama's aversion to war is a direct reflection of
America's collective weariness with war, thanks to Afghanistan and Iraq-- not debating the merits of those wars, just stating the fact.
Those two wars-- Afghanistan and Iraq-- were very costly, not just to America, but especially to America and probably more than we can ever fathom.
So here are some of the effects of a war-weary America's lack of action.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/devil-...141602608.html
President Obama, this is happening on your watch.
When the "Leader of the Free World" makes the wrong decision, the effects are far-reaching.
Threaded Mode
