Obama Is Not a George W. Bush
Published in Frankfurter Rundschau
(Germany) on 9 September 2013
by Andreas Schwarzkopf (link to original)
The United States’ persistence toward Syria’s leader Bashar al-Assad has persuaded Russia to give in. That gives us hope. However, those who criticize Obama and his threat of punitive actions will merely disparage his approach, as they have before.
The Obama administration is still trying everything to avert a military intervention in Syria. There is no other way to assess Secretary of State John Kerry’s advance that Assad merely has to hand over Syria’s chemical weapons to avoid an attack. This persistent approach finally caused Moscow to give in. That gives us hope.
However, those who criticize Obama and his threat of punitive actions will merely disparage his approach, as they have before. They are piling on accusations: He was weak when he asked Congress for his endorsement, even though he was actually following democratic rules. He lied regarding the evidence, like his predecessor George W. Bush did when he sent his secretary of state to the U.N. to justify the war in Iraq. But in fact Obama chose not to verify several accusations brought up by Assad’s opponents. What would have happened if Bush had taken the course of action that Obama has previous to the war in Iraq? An armed engagement would have been avoided.
It is easy to lose sight of the actual dilemma. How are we supposed to treat a leader who used one of the most outlawed weapons against his own people? This is a question the most powerful man in this world needs to answer. He is not to be envied.
The Obama administration is still trying everything to avert a military intervention in Syria. There is no other way to assess Secretary of State John Kerry’s advance that Assad merely has to hand over Syria’s chemical weapons to avoid an attack. This persistent approach finally caused Moscow to give in. That gives us hope.
However, those who criticize Obama and his threat of punitive actions will merely disparage his approach, as they have before. They are piling on accusations: He was weak when he asked Congress for his endorsement, even though he was actually following democratic rules. He lied regarding the evidence, like his predecessor George W. Bush did when he sent his secretary of state to the U.N. to justify the war in Iraq. But in fact Obama chose not to verify several accusations brought up by Assad’s opponents. What would have happened if Bush had taken the course of action that Obama has previous to the war in Iraq? An armed engagement would have been avoided.
It is easy to lose sight of the actual dilemma. How are we supposed to treat a leader who used one of the most outlawed weapons against his own people? This is a question the most powerful man in this world needs to answer. He is not to be envied.