It’s curious that the man who ran as the anti-war President immediately turns to war when he doesn’t like what Syria is doing. You would think that the first instinct for an anti-war President would be to look for a diplomatic solution to Assad’s alleged chemical weapons usage. Both Bush’s and Clinton took that approach with Saddam to the point where he failed to abide by 17 UN proposals before Bush 43 finally had enough. Why is it that Obama turns to war before diplomacy? While Obama is beating war drums in Washington, Putin is offering a diplomatic solution to Syria’s chemical weapons problem. (breaking: Syria accepted Putin’s proposal)
Obama seems to like Putin’s idea and has suddenly veered toward seeking diplomatic solutions. Why didn’t Obama propose something like this in the first place? He would have had a fairly easy time putting together a coalition of nations willing to pressure Syria diplomatically. The President could have used economic pressure, he could have used the UN to try to pressure Syria. He might have even been able to get Putin on board as well as the Chinese. Instead, Obama is leading from behind. He’s following Putin rather than leading America. This only after he clearly couldn’t lead us into war.
It may very well be that Putin’s proposal is a big rouse. That doesn’t change Obama’s actions over the last few weeks. Obama was the one demanding war against Syria, no matter how “unbelievably small” John Kerry said it would be. It is Obama who never suggested or offered a diplomatic solution. It was Obama who latched onto Putin’s proposal only after it became clear he couldn’t convince the country to go to war. According to Pew, the number opposed to war in Syria increased 15% last week. The only positive that has come out of any of this is that we’ve gotten to see just how “principled” the anti-war Hollywood left really is.
We haven’t had a President this weak since Jimmy Carter. The question with Obama is whether he’s a naturally weak leader or if his leftist vision requires a weak United States and thus his leading from behind. It may be a little bit of both. Obama clearly believes that a weaker America is good for the world. He doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism, he doesn’t believe in the founding principles of our nation. However, his base is anti-war. He ran as an anti-war candidate. For him to immediately jump to war, at the potential expense of his own party in next years elections to say nothing of his own political power, suggests he’s changed. Maybe he thought he could set up Republicans and then blame them when Assad used chemical weapons again. Did he think the public would appreciate him politicizing war?
Obama came into office declaring he was going to fundamentally transform America. In some ways the office fundamentally transformed Obama. The Nobel Peace Prize winner no longer looks for a peaceful, diplomatic solution to international problems. Instead, his gut instinct has become war. When pushed, then he retreats to his normal position leading the country from behind, whether it’s the French in Libya or now the Russians in Syria. At the end of the day, how come no one is asking why Obama didn’t push for the same sort of diplomatic solution Putin proposed? Why didn’t the President propose a diplomatic solution that would have more teeth or be more favorable to the United States? Why did he choose war over diplomacy?