Obama Balances Military Threats, Diplomatic Hope
إقرأ هذا الخبر بالعربية
President Barack Obama used a nationally televised address Tuesday night to make his case for military action against Syria, even as he recognized that diplomatic steps could render attacks unnecessary. He told war-weary Americans that the use of chemical weapons poses a threat to U.S. security and that America, with modest effort, "can stop children from being gassed to death."
Citing the new diplomatic efforts, Obama said he had asked congressional leaders to postpone a vote on legislation he has been seeking to authorize the use of military force against Syria — a vote he was in danger of losing. But he also said he has ordered the U.S. military to remain prepared to carry out attacks if needed.
He blamed last month's chemical attacks near Damascus squarely on Syrian President Bashar Assad and warned that a failure to act now would encourage tyrants and terrorists to use similar weapons.
"Our ideals and principals as well as our national security are at stake in Syria, along with our leadership of a world where we seek to ensure that the worst weapons will never be used," he said.
Obama's speech was seen as a critical one for his presidency, though for reasons different than when plans for it were announced last week. It was intended as the climax of the administration's pitch to persuade Congress to endorse military action in Syria. Polls showed that Americans, wary of another Middle East conflict, oppose the strikes. Lawmakers from both ends of the political spectrum declared they would vote against the measure.
Syria's announcement this week that it would accept a Russian plan to turn over the chemical weapons stockpile added new uncertainty. Obama's speech was closely watched for signs of how much stock he put in prospects for a diplomatic breakthrough .
He did recognize some potential. Obama noted he was sending his top diplomat, Secretary of State John Kerry, to Geneva for talks Thursday with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. He said he would continue his own discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin and that the U.S. and its allies would work with Russia and China to secure a U.N. Security Council resolution "requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons and to ultimately destroy them under international control."
Obama said the Russian initiative "has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad's strongest allies."
But the 16-minute speech generally made the case for military action. His arguments were both practical and emotional.
"If diplomacy now fails and the United States fails to act, he said, "the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons" and "other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas and using" it. Over time, he added, the weapons could threaten U.S. troops as well as allies like Turkey, Jordan and Israel.
"America is not the world's policeman," Obama said. "Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act."
The unpredictable chain of events stemmed from a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on Aug. 21. U.S. officials say more than 1,400 people died, including at least 400 children, and victims suffered uncontrollable twitching, foaming at the mouth and other symptoms typical of exposure to chemical weapons banned by international treaty. Other casualty estimates are lower, and Assad has said the attack was launched by rebels who have been fighting to drive him from power in a civil war that has so far claimed the lives of more than 100,000 civilians.
Russia has blocked U.S. attempts to rally the U.N. Security Council behind a military strike. But Monday, after a remark by Kerry, Russian officials spoke favorably about requiring Syria to surrender control of its chemical weapons, and the Syrian foreign minister did likewise.
11 September 2013, 07:13
67
Now ,
Turkey , KSA, Israel , & the GCC states you are officially the Sponsors' of the FSA / Al Qaeda / Al Nusra terrorists !!!!!
You all backed the Wrong Camel !!!!!
Signed Wolf !!!!
11 September 2013, 07:28
67
The plan is Simple ,
Get rid of the CW , & in return get rid of the FSA / Al Qaeda / Al Nusra as well ! No ifs or buts !
Signed Wolf .........
11 September 2013, 07:50
33
"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"
This if anything is a huge victory for the Americans. They have achieved their objective which they have been calling for even before the uprising (destroying Syria's chemical weapons) without spending a dime on any attack.
Assad was made to buckle by none other than his Russian Ally. He soiled his pants at the thought of the Americans bombing that he agreed to what just a few years ago he said was a national and strategic advantage for Syria...
Assad has been weakened, this is nothing other than a political loss for him. Maybe the Americans will used the money they saved to send some more military aid to the rebels.
11 September 2013, 08:27
56
Who said anything about giving up the CW stockpile. Syria will allow international monitors, including Russians, to over see them, but not destroy them. you can bet if Syria is attacked and their use was needed then they will be used. This agreement allows Obama to back down and save face from something he wasn't really committed to doing in the first place.
11 September 2013, 08:45
42
Every negotiation that is happening and what America is agreeing to... the handing over and eventual destruction of the chemical weapons stockpile.
in addition, seedak Moalem said Syria is now willing to join the international chemical weapons ban treaty.. wouldnt that mean destroying their chemical weapons arsenal??
think about it.
11 September 2013, 08:43
43
ya shatir... Obama still does not need congresional approval.
again i repaeat and none of you can deny.. America, and by extension, Israel have been calling for the destruction of the chemical weapons YEAR before the uprising.. and now they got it...
please show us anywhere that mentions c.w for the defeat of the rebels?!?!?!
America is still talking about sending weapons to the rebels... your analysis is lacking.
11 September 2013, 09:14
56
I did think about and my answer is still no. Do you really think Syria, iran and Russia caved into American pressure, absolutely not. All three were ready for war, something the west wasn't anticipating nor wanted to confront. So in the end, I repeat, the americans backed down all the while pretending they accomplished something. Mean while, Assad gets to continue to round up the nusra terrorists. He is happy, I am happy and you should be happy too.
11 September 2013, 10:19
51
"Syria will allow international monitors, including Russians, to over see them, but not destroy them."
this was your comment and i refuted it with clear evidence from the Syrian FM himself.. the chemical weapons will be destroyed..(if the deal goes through)
Russia was prepared to go to war with America for Syria? hahahaha.. this is turning into a comical debate.
11 September 2013, 11:48
25
what is so comical about it, who said Russia even needed to attack the American ships, all they have to do is send some missiles towards the Saudi Arabia oil fields if the US attacked Syria. What do you think would have happened to the American economy. Regarding the destruction of the chemical weapons, do you really believe that any government would actually come forward and destroy all their chemical weapon stock pile. Do you know that almost every country in the world is part of that agreement, including America, Britain Canada Iran Russia, you don't think they still have chemical weapons. UN Treaties and declarations are only as good as the paper they are signed on. Just as Israel.
11 September 2013, 12:21
41
city.. what is comical about it is Russia is not prepared to fight to the death (which it would be) against america for someone as petty as Assad, and something as petty (to russia and america) as syria.
11 September 2013, 09:19
68
Cityboy
Go easy on these Israeli / KSA / GCC / Turkey Sponsors ,
They are hurting at the moment .....
Let them cry their heart out !
We have feelings , but once they get over their defeat then start !!!!!!!
Signed Wolf .......
11 September 2013, 10:10
55
Wolf, I believe in compassion too so I will heed your advice, even though it is not going to be easy. This is like Christmas in September, how can I not be happy watching the nusra supporters trying to put a spin on why the Syrian regime will be around for years instead of days as they promised us.
11 September 2013, 10:21
43
The american plan is to have the regime around for years.. and for the rebels to be around for years as well...
Assad can stay for all i care.. as long as he is in his current situation I am happy, America is happy and you should be happy too.
11 September 2013, 12:10
33
right FT.. i am finding a rationale? saying how it is.. america getting what they have wanted for decades... is finding a rationale? well so be it.. at least mine is logical.. not more of your divine victories..lol
11 September 2013, 12:17
33
and please add something of significant value to add to the convo (which at most times you do but was disappointed with this final attempt...
11 September 2013, 11:40
25
Arzak, you seem like a sensible person at times, so I will forgive you for being happy that the situation may remain the same for a number of years to come. Below the surface, I think you want better for Syria and its people. I am sure you have been there and were treated well by its people as a visitor. Bashar will go eventually, but right now the majority need him to stay on to get through this disaster. Now we have something to agree on I hope and something both to be happy about.
11 September 2013, 12:03
26
Mambrouk to all rational, logical, intellectuals who did not support Military Intervention in our Region by the West !
Your posts have been of utmost importance that added weight to achieve this fantastic result ! Continue on the good work to portray & teach our young generation between the evil , evil doers & the worthy especially that affects our " Holy Cedar Land " Lebanon ! I Salute you all , especially our young brave Lebanese Soldiers ..... But we still have a bigger fight to overcome, inshallah we will eventually win it for Lebanon & its people .
Signed Wolf !!!!
11 September 2013, 12:15
42
cityboy... i do want what is better for Syria and it's people.. the problem is Assad does not.. And neither do the jihadists.. i had an excellent conversation with a poster called endless..
what is best for syria is not supporting the jihadists.. and lumping them together in the same group as other moderate people in the opposition.. and neither is it supporting Assad because some of the opposition are jihadists.. The FSA are clashing with the jihadists.. so are the kurds.. it should be our duty to support the moderate opposition against both Assad and the takfiris.. but not a single person aligned with M8 ever gave them a chance..and are quick to put them on the same boat as the takfiris.. let us also not forget that Assad himself freed quite a few of these bearded nut cases himself in the beginning of the revolution.
11 September 2013, 12:49
25
Arzak, you know you lose credibility when you say foolish slogans like Bashar does not want what is better for Syria. Yes I do agree that he is not the most gentle man, but he is a lot better than his dad, it was Bashar that was actually trying to make progressive changes in Syria, it was others in his government especially those that benefited most from the status quo that were working against him. Many Syrians would tell you that they would elect Bashar but not his government. As for M8 not giving moderates in the opposition a chance, I think you need to reassess that thought. M8, along with Bashar, Iran and Russia have been calling on those moderates to the dialogue table for sometime. It is the crazies in the opposition that wont allow the moderates to negotiate with Bashar. Remember their demand, Bashar has to go first. What about talking for sake of Syria.
11 September 2013, 12:53
25
As for Bashar releasing some prisoners at the start, it was a good will gesture on his part to show his seriousness to talk. I guess Saudi Arabia and Qatar with their bs Aljazeera network, decided that Syria needed some foreign jihadist. over 2 years later, I think Bashar is probably questioning also why he released them as good will gesture considering what was giving back to the country.
11 September 2013, 13:22
42
city.. you know it is you who loses credibility when you say that Bashar wants what is good for syria. Is that why corruption still soared with him doing nothing about it? is that why poverty was abundant and he did nothing about it? Bashar SAID he wants to make progressive change, and yet (for whatever reason, he is the president) did nothing different than his father, so they are on the same footing. Many Syrians would tell you they would shoot Bashar and his govt if given the chance.
11 September 2013, 13:25
42
let us reassess shall we. A revolution starts because kids were tortured because of anti-govt grafiti. The people were not even asking for the down fall of the govt or assad back then. just a change to the "emergency laws" they are greeted by a crackdown that killed, arrested and tortured many of them. and after he does that you want them to sit on the table with him after he found out that they are too many and too strong to be beaten and negotiate?
He could have stepped down, called for free fair elections (which the reformer in your eyes never had, and was always elected with 99.9% of the vote) but he refused. he was not elected by the people, and the opposition's demand that he step down was a fair one.
11 September 2013, 13:32
24
so you are actually saying (and with a straight face i assume) that Assad released these jihadists as a good will gesture?? why? was there a shortage of noramal people that were arbitrarily arrested in his jails??? who were there as political prisoners?
he released them as a calculated maneuver, to claim to the world he is fighting al qaida, and takfiris. foreign jihadists are no doubt in the country.. i am not denying that.. but please dont tell me he released them out of good will. he only has himself to blame..
11 September 2013, 13:32
15
he could have saved syria if he had its best interest at heart.. by stepping down and running in the elections and winning (since he unwittingly thinks he still has the majority) so do not tell me he has Syrias best interest at heart.. he has his and his mafias best interest at heart.. he has his hold on power as his best interest.
there are many reasons for the people to revolt against him... and while this has become an international chess board.. at first it was a purely syrian revolution.. which assad spat on.
11 September 2013, 15:01
14
while that could be true FT and i am sure mercaneries are abound in our part of the country.
but the only reason i do not buy that in syria, at the start of and shortly prior ot he revolution, is because this was a police state.. Assad and co's control over everything in the country was incomparable.. no significant weapons shipments could have been sent without a majority, if not all being sniffed out by his mukhabarat.. no serious infiltration of jihadists could have occurred without his knowledge... while your theory could be very probable in a failed state like Lebanon, does not fit for the police state syria was prior to the revolution.
11 September 2013, 22:26
11
Arzak, while I respect your opinion, I don't think you are correct. Sure there was corruption in Syria, that goes for all countries, democratic or not. As for the economy, it was improving under Bashar, investment by foreign countries was way up thanks to his initiative to open Syria up. As for the peaceful protest, yes some of them were peaceful and some of the police attacking them made mistakes, even Bashar admitted that. Police in the west make the same mistakes as well. Does this mean that an armed revolt that doesn't represent the majority of people has to happen, my answer to you is No. What have they gained, if the majority of people were against this regime or at least against waiting for an election then Bashar would have been gone by now, regardless of how much help from HA or anyone else.
11 September 2013, 22:28
10
Without repeating what FT said, you know that the Saudis and company had it all planned from the beginning how to ignite the situation in Syria.
12 September 2013, 08:49
01
look at Egypt, Morsi was democratically elected and you still hail his downfall.. spread the same love to someone who was not democratically elected.
12 September 2013, 08:49
01
most of the foreign investments were from the gulf... so you are telling me that the gulf threw their money into syria, knowing they were going to ignite it?
Again, the gulf is interfering AFTER the fact that the uprising started...they took advantage of it.. sure.. but this was not planned for the same reasons i told FT, Syria was a police state, and nothing such as massive weapons shipments or a significant number of mercenaries would have gotten by the mukhabarat.
Western police do make mistakes, absolutely.. but there is a huge difference between a mistake and being known for your ruthlessness and arbitrary arrests and torture.
At the end of the day Assad was NOT elected, and the situation would not have reached this level of savagery if he stepped down and ran in free fair elections.. if he had won a true election then he has the right to stay as a true representative of the people.. not before.
