Absolutely.
There is a segment on the right that would vote no simply
because Obama says he wants it.
As I suggested last week, Barack Obama was never serious
when he warned the Assad regime against crossing the “red line” on the issue of
chemical weapons. He was merely doing
what he loves to do best, posture.
Even if I’m wrong, we should not be focusing on political
tit-for-tat when our national interest is involved.
Without question, the President put his credibility on
the line by painting lines. If you’ll
forgive the mixed metaphor, Obama may deserve to be hoisted on his own
petard. But that’s not an appropriate or
sensible reason for a policy decision.
[Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton lambasts the
President saying that Obama’s credibility on the world stage cannot be
resurrected. I say we have to try for America’s sake.]
If we accept that credibility is a vital aspect of
foreign – and military – affairs, we cannot ignore that the President’s
credibility or lack thereof potentially affects us all. He represents our nation to the world. Assessments of Barack Obama’s credibility,
therefore, bear heavily on how America’s true intentions are judged. Misjudgments on that score can cause our foes
– and friends – to make decisions which are harmful, indeed, to them and to us.
If, for instance, President Obama is unable or seems
unwilling to enforce his red line, it’s likely that the potential users of
chemical weapons will be emboldened.
And, if so, won’t the possession and use of chemical weapons
spread? Some will use it offensively
while others will feel a need to possess them as deterrents.
It is beside the point to say that there would be no
crisis if Obama had not talked about red lines a year ago. So what?
He did. And now his credibility
problem is the nation’s.
Congress, in my view, has no real choice but to give the
President the authority to act he claims
to want. Our national self-interest
requires it.
No comments:
Post a Comment