“Our ideals and principles, as well as our national security, are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used,” President Obama told the American people in a primetime televised speech last Tuesday.
“America is not the world’s policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act. That’s what makes America different. That’s what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth.”
Obama presented this moral argument as he tried to get consensus among member of Congress and the American people, on why the United States should carry out a targeted limited airstrike on the Assad Regime in Syria.
The Commander-in-Chief also made his case that it is this threat of military action that has compelled Syria, through the intercession of Russia, to propose a diplomatic solution to the crisis in Syria. They agreed to surrender all of Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles to United Nations (UN) control, and eventually destroy them.
However, Obama insists that while he has pushed the pause button to give Syria and Russia a chance to present the details of their proposal to the UN Security Council, the threat of military strike should still be on the table and could still be used if Syria does not deliver and the diplomatic solution fails.
In an Op-Ed article he wrote (published by the New York Times), Russian President Vladimir Putin rebuked Pres. Obama’s conviction and argued that the way to a peaceful resolution of the crisis in Syria will not be attained , for as long as the United States continues to pose a military threat against Syria.
Putin said attacking Syria, even on a limited scale, is in violation of international laws because it does not have the mandate of the UN.
The Russian President continued to argue that the rebels, and not the Syrian government, were responsible for the slaughter of more than 1,400 innocent civilians in Syria on August 21, 2013.
Putin went on to criticize Pres. Obama on his message of “American exceptionalism” in his speech.
Putin said: “I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism. …It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. … We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.”
Yet, as the New York Times reported, “A broad majority of Americans, exhausted by nearly a dozen years of war and fearful of tripping into another one, are opposed to a military strike on Syria, even though most say they think Syrian forces used chemical weapons against civilians.”
According to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, six in every ten Americans still oppose any US airstrike on Syria.
President Obama said he understood the sentiments of the American people about the planned attack in Syria. “If you ask Michelle,” Obama said in an interview, “Do we– do we want to be involved in another war? The answer is no.”
“I was elected to end wars and not start them,” an exasperated President Obama said during his news conference at the G-20 Summit of world leaders in Russia.
“I’ve spent the last 4 1/2 years doing everything I can to reduce our reliance on military power as a means of meeting our international obligations and protecting the American people.”
Obama has been making the case that what his administration is doing is in fact a necessary move to end the war, not to start one.
Tired of wars and their economic consequences to our lives in America, kababayans are also divided on this issue.
We asked the viewers of The Filipino Channel’s daily newscast Balitang America: “if a limited strike on Syria will deter the use of chemical weapons.”
79 percent of our viewers who voted said NO. Some fear striking Syria might even trigger retaliation from Assad with more chemical weapons.
Only 21 percent said YES. Other viewers said that this limited strike will give countries a sense of fear, and might compel them to get rid of their chemical weapons stockpiles.
An overwhelming 95 percent contend that the US should not launch any military strike unilaterally, and should work with the international coalition in the UN.
“Should the US trust the diplomatic solution proposed by Russia and stop the planned strike in Syria?” A majority of our viewers (57 percent ) were willing to trust Russia just to avert any war.
Here are some of the comments shared by our kababayans from different parts of the world:
“I strongly believe that military action vs. Syria is not the most prudent and politically effective approach to stop a leader who used chemical weapons against its people. Hence, I support any call for peace and ceasefire between the Syrian government and the rebels. World leaders must move towards a collective action to create an atmosphere of peace and not to engage in war-making operations… Our world is a web of interdependent humanity that our assurance of full security and happiness is not decided by us alone– but in the end, rests with relationship that we build and which are founded precisely on justice, freedom and human trust.” – Atty. Arnedo Valera
“Walang kaibahan yan sa isang hostage-taking situation. After mercilessly killing some of the hostages including children, the perpetrators (Syria) demand that the SWAT POLICE (America) throw all their FIREARMS aside during the extended negotiation, without a deadline. The broker or peace negotiator (Russia) is the real “Architect” of putting AMERICA in a very weak situation in the public eye, while the damn Republicans are demonizing Obama, for all the wrong reasons — politics ! Thank God, in the end, the US PENTAGON will act swiftly should [there be a failure in negotiaitions]. [But] Obama is totally weakened, [in his] worldwide image. MR. OBAMA, Don’t draw a RED LINE if you cannot follow through. BY BACKING OFF FROM BOMBING SYRIA, YOU have put AMERICA’S SUPREME MILITARY POWER in a very embarrassing situation!” – Lino Celle
“A unilateral military action undertaken by the US without a mandate from the UN Security Council would severely damage the very authority of the UN Security Council, as the international body with the primary responsibility [of maintaining] international peace and security. This undermines the UN system’s regulations on the use of force and sets a very dangerous precedent on how states can work around the UN Security Council in employing unrestrained use force, by invoking humanitarian grounds to justify such attacks.” – Karen Pimentel Simbulan
“Ano yung gagamitin nilang pera na pambili ng armas, mga artilleries nila? Siyempre tax dollars. Napupunta na lang sa giyera imbes na mapunta sa mga basic services tulad ng education, health. Napupunta pa sa giyera na ang dami-daming namamatay.” – Jonna Baldres
“Obama should lead a ‘Calculated Attack’ on stronghold positions of Assad. Assad not only did a crime against humanity but notedly an assault on non-combatants, which is equally a violation of the Geneva convention. Democracy has fallen on Syria and it should be restored, Assad should face the War Crime Tribunal in The Hague.” – Gary Tan
“To agree that Syrian can just give in their chemical weapons and that the world can forget the August 21 nerve gas massacre is wrong. I agree with the French – surrendering chemical weapons is alright, as long as the regime surrender those guilty for ordering it, for trial in the International Criminal Court.” – Carlo Butalid
* * *
Gel Santos Relos is the anchor of TFC’s “Balitang America.” Views and opinions expressed by the author in this column are are solely those of the author and not of Asian Journal and ABS-CBN-TFC. For comments, go to www.TheFil-AmPerspective.com, https://www.facebook.com/Gel.Santos.Relos
