The President addressed the nation in a speech Tuesday night, speaking to the role of the US government and armed forces in Syria. On the heels of disappointing trends in political and public opinion, the speech was being panned as barely coherent and confusing. Of course, there is something to be said for the fact that there was some hint of rationale behind the attacks but the President seemed to waffle on what he wanted, when he wanted, and why.

Of course, President Obama made the case that there was a need for international intervention at the hands of Americans in the Syrian region because of the abhorrent rights violations at the hands of Assad and his minions. He then appealed to the international community in a way by highlighting the fact that the weapons used were a clear violation of the chemical weapons ban of the UN in which many countries agreed to downgrade and remove these weapons of war. It becomes a question of interventionism and when and where the United States intervenes, and to what ends.

There has been talk of arming the rebels in the country who are fighting Assad’s policies. The fact remains, however, that these are less than ideal individuals with questionable background. What is their ultimate goal? Are they able to handle the weapons provided and if so, do we even want them to do so? The strong ties to Al Qaeda are making it unsavory in the public and on Capitol Hill to even consider this option, even though some senior lawmakers argue that these rebels will be “vetted” (whatever that means). The fact remains, we still have no idea what the President truly wants, why he wants it, and why he is allowing Russia to take first lead in this endeavor. Though the hardcore Obamaites will consider this a diplomatic victory of sorts, it is questionable who and what would read into this as anything but a bumbling mess of epic failure on the part of the President. Way to go sir, way to go.

Comments