Obama at a Crossroads
When I was a young boy of about eight or nine years old, at least every other day, I would have a fight with another boy of a similar age. It wasn’t because I enjoyed fighting, but the custom of the time held that young boys fought amongst one another, with the sole purpose of showing they were not afraid. In fact, most of those fights were between friends and others I knew.
I remember that on occasion, in the middle of a discussion of little importance, someone would draw a line on the ground and if someone else crossed it, they would be insulting [the first child’s] mother. Although this was not exactly the verbiage we would use, to not offend the readers of this column, I will not disclose what exactly was said.
More than a show of valor and courage, it was a real challenge we set for each other. After all, no boy with testosterone coming out of his pores would pass by the challenge of stepping on the line simply to exchange a few punches. These are memories of my childhood that come to mind now, many years later.
The president of the United States seems to be imitating us. Barack Obama has done something similar to what we use to do as kids with the Democratic Republic of Korea, Iran and, most recently, with Syria. He publicly told Iran, like Korea, that if it goes through with nuclear tests, it would be crossing a red line that would bring about severe consequences. He has said the same thing to Syria with respect to chemical weapons. To make that promise publicly is very dangerous.
In our games as children, this was comparable to when we put ourselves against a wall, and if someone dared to touch the line, we would fight, or we would be forced to cowardly run away, humiliated. Of course, our sense of courage compelled us to duke it out with whoever accepted our challenge, and if we failed, it would have us stay away for long periods of time, shamed and in our homes.
The president has set his own trap in place. I am convinced that Barack Obama does not want to start any war, just as we sometimes did not want to start a fight, but when someone is put between the sword and the stone, they have to either fight against the sword or resign to the ground, offended and humiliated, to quote Dostoyevsky.
As children, to rush home and not engage in the fight, disagreeable as it may have been, was cowardly but acceptable. Can that be a valid position for a country? Can that be the position of the most powerful country in the world? I doubt it.
Of the three sad tigers that have been going mad to bomb Syria, only the American tiger has made such a public affirmation. It has been the only one that has drawn the line on the ground. This is the reason why David Cameron can hide behind the British parliament’s resolution and not participate in the bombing party. The same is true for the French president. But this is not the case for Obama. Obama has put himself in a very difficult position: Even if Congress does not approve the bombing of Syria, he will have no choice but to act, no other choice but to fire, even if it is just a limited number of bombs, just to save face.
It is incomprehensible that the president has created his own trap and has fallen into it. I am convinced that Obama knows it is a political mistake to intervene militarily in Syria, and that is the reason he is looking for someone to share the responsibility. For the time being, he has called on Congress so that it may share the burden if everything comes out wrong and the conflict escalates to something more than just a simple bombing.
Different polls have proven that the majority of the country’s opinion is against the intervention, as is the case in most of the world’s nations. Syria has not attacked United States soil or one of its territories or provinces — not even its greatest ally, Israel. For the time being, there exists no significant reason that would justify a military response, though I am sure this is going to happen, with permission or without.
I don’t see any way, and I do hope I am wrong, that the president of the most powerful nation on the planet will retire with his tail between his legs, after making the promise regarding the chemical weapons and having drawn the line on the ground. Honestly, I feel sorry for Barack Obama, but I am more sorry for the country of the United States, that which I love so much, and for the possible victims on both sides.
I remember that on occasion, in the middle of a discussion of little importance, someone would draw a line on the ground and if someone else crossed it, they would be insulting [the first child’s] mother. Although this was not exactly the verbiage we would use, to not offend the readers of this column, I will not disclose what exactly was said.
More than a show of valor and courage, it was a real challenge we set for each other. After all, no boy with testosterone coming out of his pores would pass by the challenge of stepping on the line simply to exchange a few punches. These are memories of my childhood that come to mind now, many years later.
The president of the United States seems to be imitating us. Barack Obama has done something similar to what we use to do as kids with the Democratic Republic of Korea, Iran and, most recently, with Syria. He publicly told Iran, like Korea, that if it goes through with nuclear tests, it would be crossing a red line that would bring about severe consequences. He has said the same thing to Syria with respect to chemical weapons. To make that promise publicly is very dangerous.
In our games as children, this was comparable to when we put ourselves against a wall, and if someone dared to touch the line, we would fight, or we would be forced to cowardly run away, humiliated. Of course, our sense of courage compelled us to duke it out with whoever accepted our challenge, and if we failed, it would have us stay away for long periods of time, shamed and in our homes.
The president has set his own trap in place. I am convinced that Barack Obama does not want to start any war, just as we sometimes did not want to start a fight, but when someone is put between the sword and the stone, they have to either fight against the sword or resign to the ground, offended and humiliated, to quote Dostoyevsky.
As children, to rush home and not engage in the fight, disagreeable as it may have been, was cowardly but acceptable. Can that be a valid position for a country? Can that be the position of the most powerful country in the world? I doubt it.
Of the three sad tigers that have been going mad to bomb Syria, only the American tiger has made such a public affirmation. It has been the only one that has drawn the line on the ground. This is the reason why David Cameron can hide behind the British parliament’s resolution and not participate in the bombing party. The same is true for the French president. But this is not the case for Obama. Obama has put himself in a very difficult position: Even if Congress does not approve the bombing of Syria, he will have no choice but to act, no other choice but to fire, even if it is just a limited number of bombs, just to save face.
It is incomprehensible that the president has created his own trap and has fallen into it. I am convinced that Obama knows it is a political mistake to intervene militarily in Syria, and that is the reason he is looking for someone to share the responsibility. For the time being, he has called on Congress so that it may share the burden if everything comes out wrong and the conflict escalates to something more than just a simple bombing.
Different polls have proven that the majority of the country’s opinion is against the intervention, as is the case in most of the world’s nations. Syria has not attacked United States soil or one of its territories or provinces — not even its greatest ally, Israel. For the time being, there exists no significant reason that would justify a military response, though I am sure this is going to happen, with permission or without.
I don’t see any way, and I do hope I am wrong, that the president of the most powerful nation on the planet will retire with his tail between his legs, after making the promise regarding the chemical weapons and having drawn the line on the ground. Honestly, I feel sorry for Barack Obama, but I am more sorry for the country of the United States, that which I love so much, and for the possible victims on both sides.
Previous article![]( "Pakistan Taking Its Case against US Drone Attacks to the United Nations")
