Obama Owns This Failure - Syria Civil War

[Jermyn Davidson]

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.

[Jermyn Davidson]

See, it is policy decisions like this that elucidate why America should NEVER elect Presidents who are too far to the right or left.

Obama was blinded by his own fundamentally critical view of American involvement in the affairs of other countries, particularly those in the Middle East-- so blinded that he didn't see this day coming.

I bet no one in his inner circle saw this day coming.


In fact, I distinctly remember APPLAUDING his consistent decisions to largely keep America out of the Arab Spring and other uprisings that started to break out across the Middle East.

I was wrong.


It is obvious now that with Syria, we should have stepped in and done something. We should have found the money to do more. We just should have done more.

[Jermyn Davidson]

I don't think I am over reacting with this. In fact, I think that there aren't enough people that are alarmed over the dynamics of what is going now as a result of our lack of leadership in this situation.

Sending American troops into Syria would have been WIDELY UNPOPULAR.

Asaad knew that and so he tested our President.

President Obama failed.

Obama's lack of intestinal fortitude and foresight in this matter helped to create the situation we have today.

[FlamingZword]

Only an idiot president would limit his options, much less announce them in the press.

Once the enemy knows what options are off the table, they can adjust their strategy.

A strong president would leave no action off the table and would not tell the enemy his strategy.

Do you see Putin limiting his options, no way, he does not and neither does he publicize what he is going to do.

[Jermyn Davidson]

The whole publicizing what we're going to do before we do it has been America's way of doing things since the FIRST Gulf War.

I understood it in 8th grade-- limit civilian casualties.

However, to extrapolate that policy into other areas of foreign policy is not advantageous, not wise. It really puts America at a disadvantage.

I hope our next President is learning from this.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Really, when Asaad defied our President and bombed his own people with chemical weapons again and then again, Obama should have made the unpopular decision at that moment.

It would have been the right thing to do.

It would have been TREMENDOUSLY COSTLY-- but RIGHT.

[Esaias]

Syria was plsnned way before any of us ever even heard of Obama. During Shrub's reign of horror it was announced there were several nations slated for war and "regime change". Iraq and Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and North Korea.

Everything is right on schedule.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

Really, when Asaad defied our President and bombed his own people with chemical weapons again and then again, Obama should have made the unpopular decision at that moment.

It would have been the right thing to do.

It would have been TREMENDOUSLY COSTLY-- but RIGHT.

The chemical weapons were supplied by Saudi Arabia ... and were American in origin, claimed by ISIS.

You really need to quit watching C (ommunist)NN and Faux.

[Jermyn Davidson]

No Esaias you are wrong.

First of all, there will be no regime change in Syria-- at least not any time soon.

Second, there was a time in very recent history, during the Obama Administration, that what we have today could have been avoided.

However, he made the wrong decision.

Asaad is still in power and millions are dead. Thousands are flooding into Europe seeking shelter, creating widespread crisis for that continent. That crisis will touch America too. Russia is stronger and emboldened, instead of ostracized and ignored. And America... is on the sidelines, not leading.

[Jermyn Davidson]

The Muslims flooding Europe is an indirect result of America's inaction in Syria. Most, if not all of the most recent deluge of Muslims into Europe is due to the Syrian Civil War.