Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,100
- 245
It seems that Obama didn't plan on seeking anyone's approval, and that a first draft of his speech was slightly different from the final version he gave today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/o...it-good-for.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=1&
But its my second term, and Im awfully tired of talking in clichés.
So lets be frank: Striking Syria isnt going to put an end to the killing there or plant democracy in Damascus, so its hard to make the case that our values are really on the line.
Nor are our immediate interests: Assads regime doesnt pose a direct threat to the United States or our allies, and given the kind of people leading the Syrian rebellion these days, we may be better off if the civil war drags out as long as possible without a winner.
Nor do we have much in the way of official international support no Security Council, no Arab League, not even the British. Were down to the same coalition of the willing we started with in the 1770s: Its just us and the French.
Even at home, I dont have many cheerleaders. My base is naturally antiwar, half the Republican Party has turned anti-interventionist, and the hawks of the right and left see this kind of strike as too limited to be worthwhile.
No, this ones on me. And I owe you an explanation of what Im thinking.
Basically, it comes down to Americas role on the international stage, and how we can use our extraordinary military preponderance for our own good and the worlds.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/o...it-good-for.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=1&