Obama Needs To Convince the World; What Is the Weinberger Doctrine?
Published in Polityka
(Poland) on 31 August 2013
by Marek Ostrowski (link to original)
(Poland) on 31 August 2013
by Marek Ostrowski (link to original)
Translated from
by Natalia Suta.
Edited by Gillian Palmer.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, with almost 100 percent certainty, presented evidence of the war crime committed by the Syrian regime; he gave the exact number of “chemical victims” and he even presented — down to the meter — a map of places in the suburbs of Damascus where the explosions took place.
American diplomatic posts throughout the world have sent out a summary of the details to the media. They have also presented rather sound arguments for blaming Bashar al-Assad and not his opponents, who could have indeed fabricated evidence or tried some fraudulent manipulation.
However, most public opinion in Europe — and even in America — is quite skeptical about the evidence, and definitely doesn’t support an attack against the Syrian army. Nowadays, what counts is not what really happens but what people think of it. Obama has just found himself in a deadlock. After such a violent chemical attack, he should react accordingly. The U.S. highlights its leading role in the world very often. The U.S. president cannot follow Vladimir Putin, who has kept his lips sealed over the last few days. On the other hand, Washington, in the face of the current wave of anti-Americanism, shouldn’t risk retaliation if there are no clear targets and necessary consequences.
The current events are ironically observed from beyond the grave by Caspar Weinberger, the secretary of defense in Nixon’s and Reagan’s days. After a severe and bloody defeat in the Vietnam War, the U.S. was considering pros and cons of an intervention in Lebanon. At that time, Weinberger formulated for the U.S. Congress six relatively precise conditions to be met in order to send U.S. soldiers on any trip abroad. The criteria were named the Weinberger doctrine. Since that time, it should have been clear that democracy shouldn’t resort to rockets and planes without support from the media, and especially without the support of public opinion. In fact, the Weinberger doctrine from 1985 was later edited by Gen. Colin Powell, later the U.S. secretary of state, the same person who presented to the world the “evidence” for the existence of nuclear weapons in Iraq. This evidence — rather, the lack of it — is now having damaging effects on the current situation in Syria.
Chemical weapons evoke a feeling of horror and disgust and their use common condemnation. If the U.N. proposed a resolution against the use of chemical weapons, not a single country would reject it. A riposte is a different thing, even if it’s just a brief campaign. Nowadays the Weinberger doctrine has reached a global extent. If America wants to play the role of the worldwide leader, it needs to convince not only American but also global public opinion that it is right. And if the world doesn’t want to listen to that, people should say out loud: Let’s leave Syria’s tragedy as it is. We are just going to watch it on TV.
American diplomatic posts throughout the world have sent out a summary of the details to the media. They have also presented rather sound arguments for blaming Bashar al-Assad and not his opponents, who could have indeed fabricated evidence or tried some fraudulent manipulation.
However, most public opinion in Europe — and even in America — is quite skeptical about the evidence, and definitely doesn’t support an attack against the Syrian army. Nowadays, what counts is not what really happens but what people think of it. Obama has just found himself in a deadlock. After such a violent chemical attack, he should react accordingly. The U.S. highlights its leading role in the world very often. The U.S. president cannot follow Vladimir Putin, who has kept his lips sealed over the last few days. On the other hand, Washington, in the face of the current wave of anti-Americanism, shouldn’t risk retaliation if there are no clear targets and necessary consequences.
The current events are ironically observed from beyond the grave by Caspar Weinberger, the secretary of defense in Nixon’s and Reagan’s days. After a severe and bloody defeat in the Vietnam War, the U.S. was considering pros and cons of an intervention in Lebanon. At that time, Weinberger formulated for the U.S. Congress six relatively precise conditions to be met in order to send U.S. soldiers on any trip abroad. The criteria were named the Weinberger doctrine. Since that time, it should have been clear that democracy shouldn’t resort to rockets and planes without support from the media, and especially without the support of public opinion. In fact, the Weinberger doctrine from 1985 was later edited by Gen. Colin Powell, later the U.S. secretary of state, the same person who presented to the world the “evidence” for the existence of nuclear weapons in Iraq. This evidence — rather, the lack of it — is now having damaging effects on the current situation in Syria.
Chemical weapons evoke a feeling of horror and disgust and their use common condemnation. If the U.N. proposed a resolution against the use of chemical weapons, not a single country would reject it. A riposte is a different thing, even if it’s just a brief campaign. Nowadays the Weinberger doctrine has reached a global extent. If America wants to play the role of the worldwide leader, it needs to convince not only American but also global public opinion that it is right. And if the world doesn’t want to listen to that, people should say out loud: Let’s leave Syria’s tragedy as it is. We are just going to watch it on TV.
Previous article![]( "Starting World War III")
Next article![]( "American Dithering")
