–Otorofani Political Commentaries–
It was said a long time ago by a famous philosopher that the only thing required for evil to thrive and flourish is for good men to remain silent in the face of it. The timid world remained silent when the megalomaniacal German Chancellor, Adolf Hitler, began his murderous campaigns of world domination until it was too late after millions had perished. It begins with one demon possessed individual in position of power to set the word ablaze. Well, then, I consider myself a good man and therefore refuse to remain silent in the face of an emergent evil, just like other good men speaking out against Obama’s misguided attempt to set the Middle East ablaze once again on the pretext of yet unproven alleged use of chemical weapons by President Bashir Assad of Syria.
Lately, after enduring withering criticisms from his political opponents about being weak and pacifist on the foreign policy front in contrast to his predecessor, G.W Bush, in the face of the ongoing civil war in Syria, President Barrack Hussein Obama of the United States suddenly woke up one day last week to discover his mojo and now wants the world to know that he is no wimp but a military warrior and Commander-in-Chief of the US Armed Forces as if anybody needed a reminder. He had good reasons, though, because many of his fellow citizens seemed to have forgotten that the United States still had an usually dark skinned C-in-C in the White House given Obama’s rather timid approach to military matters and his seeming obsession to downsize and downgrade the US military by gutting its budget, as evidenced, for example, in the sequester as well as in his budgetary proposals to Congress and the reduction of US nuclear arsenal, just to mention but a few. Many have accused him of “hollowing out” the military to fund his social programs of entitlement in his socialist drive. Rightly or wrongly, this has been a consistent criticism of Obama mostly by the right, which he has done everything to validate rather than disprove as president and Commander-in-Chief. Presently, US war veterans are suffering with hundreds of thousands of them without jobs and many homeless with some even committing suicide under the Obama administration. Yes, it’s that bad. There are media reports and stories of US war veterans being denied benefits. What a shame! All of these go to demonstrate Obama’s antipathy toward the military, which he now wants to use to fight his petty wars in the Arab world nevertheless. He ought to be stopped dead in his track by the American people in this military experiment.
The alleged use of chemical weapons against civilian targets in the ongoing Syrian civil war by President Assad has, therefore, afforded Obama the opportunity to demonstrate his military credentials by threatening to bomb Syria. And he appears ready to go it alone even in the face of lack of UN authorization and refusal of the usual suspects in the west to go along with him. Britain is out, so is Germany, Italy, Canada, Spain, et al, and France is wavering. Now when a bunch of known pacifists and peaceniks like the trio of President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, and Secretary of State, John Kerry, suddenly become hawkish and begin to beat war drums not because of their natural innate inclination for warmongering but because somebody is mocking Obama for being weak after being on record drawing a red line for Syrian President against the use of chemical weapons, which by the way, Obama now shamelessly denies making, it is clear that they’re up to no good, and the mission is bound to run into troubled waters and badly mismanaged, because they have no natural warrior instincts but are pretend warriors.
In contrast, when President Ronald Reagan bombed Libya in 1986 killing Gadaffi’s son in response to the Berlin discotheque bombing, he did it in a jiffy without dragging his feet and blowing hot and cold, huffing and puffing, moving forward and backwards, and changing positions overnight as Obama is doing today. In other words, he did because he had to do it as a real C-in-C, because he was responding to an attack by Gaddafi on an ally of the US, not some feel good military adventure on some nebulous humanitarian grounds, purportedly. That’s the difference between a real leader and a pretender to leadership. A vacillating leader in war matters is a weak and dangerous leader for any nation and should there be a big war in the world under Obama, theUnited States will be in deep, deep trouble indeed much like British PM Arthur Neville Chamberlain in the run up to WWII.
Now quite apart from the merits, legality, and wisdom of his proposed attack on Syria, the action itself has lost its face value militarily, due to the dithering and indecision of Obama, allowing Assad ample time to take appropriate measures to minimize the blow if and when it eventually comes to pass, as well as for Assad allies in the region such as Iran and Hezbollah, to rally around and come to his aid. The threat from Iran against US interests in the region is indicative of probable consequences of Obama’s indecision. Had Obama quickly hit hard and left like Reagan did in Libya, we would not be here debating this, and would have been a fait accompli. And whatever debates after the fact would have been merely academic. Now, the debate is having different effect and impact, both in the US Congress and in the larger American society as well, including I might add, the international community, which Obama has failed to persuade to support him. Suddenly, he has found himself a loner and now fighting off accusations of war mongering that he is not by nature and must therefore be quite unsettling for him. The G20 meeting in Russia provided world leaders the opportunity to bash Obama, taking turns to lecture him like a school boy. He boxed himself into this corner due to sheer ineptitude and incompetence in managing the affairs of state. We have seen similar movie before play out in the Benghazi US embassy attack demonstrating the gross ineptitude and incompetence of the Obama administration in managing state affairs in times of national crisis when Obama and Hillary Clinton could not offer protection for their own ambassador and embassy building and when terrorists struck even with prior notice.
We are once again witnessing gross ineptitude and gross incompetence in full glare. One does not need to be an army general to understand that timing is of the essence as in all such situations and the element of surprise has already been lost by Obama for the Syrian strike. President Assad has had more than enough time to hide his military assets, even send them to other friendly neighbors, just like Iraq did in the first Gulf war when Saddam Hussein flew his bombers to Iran for safe keeping, as well as whip up anti-US sentiments and thereby increasing the costs of attack on the US down the road, even if not immediately. In his characteristic naïveté, Obama and his officials have handed Assad a verbal map of where and what the US will strike. One would think military targets are military secrets in a war, apparently not so for Obama. He telegraphs his targets before striking!
Of course there are fixed and immovable military assets like buildings, communication towers, roads and so on that could still be hit, including Assad’s presidential palace, but of what value are those as targets when the military hardware have been moved and secreted by Assad only to be brought back into action later? Does anyone expect Assad to be sitting duck waiting for US bombs to rain on him in his palace? What precisely is the pinprick bombing runs meant to accomplish when Assad is still in power bludgeoning the Islamist opposition into surrender in the end? This is precisely the question the US Congress and others are wrestling with that the Obama administration has failed to provide answers. All they want is to send a message to Assad. What an expensive message that will result in the death of thousands of Syrians, at least potentially, far more than the 1,400 killed by the alleged chemical attack, and the cost on the American taxpayers. Who needs such a message? What sense does it make to kills Syrians to send a message to Assad? It’s one reason why Americans are opposed to the attack, and rightfully so.
There’s yet another downside to Obama’s dithering: the more the delay the more Obama losses credibility both at home and abroad, if he has any credibility left in him given the basket of scandals that have sapped all credibility from his administration hitherto. The fact that it’s Obama rather than Assad that’s on the defensive abroad after being asked to justify his proposed action is victory for Assad already in the public relations department even before the war begins. Obama is the one struggling to convince people about his action not Assad proving his innocence in the chemical attack. Going to war from a position of weakness both at home and abroad is courting defeat and the silhouettes of defeat are beginning to show.
Obama’s credibility is already being called into question as several commentators are taking the position that Obama suddenly pulled back and referred the matter to Congress having childishly boxed himself into a corner in order to save face. Others are saying he did that because Prime Minister Cameron lost the vote in the British Parliament and Obama was no longer keen on going it alone due to the risks involved and now wants to share the blame with Congress should thing go wrong after arrogantly declaring that he didn’t need congressional authorization to go to war. What it shows is that Obama is taking lessons from Britain and being led by David Cameron. The Brits have in fact said that much, taking credit for staying Obama’s hand after the vote in Parliament and causing him to refer the matter to the US Congress, abruptly. Either way, it shows serious weakness in leadership. Obama has not been an effective war leader either in Iraq or in Afghanistan and that’s why he’s always cutting and running. The two major wars Obama has been involved in were inherited from Bush and both have been totally mismanaged with the US cutting and running in the end. This one coming is Obama’s war, and thus far, its management even at this initial stage is not looking good either.
In view of the unenviable position Obama has put himself, therefore, there’s the possibility, in fact, probability, that should the US Congress refuse to oblige him with a war resolution he might out of sheer desperation to save face, launch a strike anyhow so as no to appear weak, which in itself, would question the legitimacy and constitutionally of such action not expressly authorized by Congress. What a weak position for a president to go to war without the backing of his country, and the express refusal of the people’s representatives in Congress! That is not a pretty position for a Commander-in-Chief to find himself, all because of war resolution mismanagement, if not the actual war itself.
The use of banned chemical weapons in warfare by any nation is a global matter to be dealt with by the UN Security Council not one for any single nation or leader to carry on its/his head. The fact that only Obama in the entire world is running around beating war drums in the market square is, to say the least, embarrassing to his country men and women. He’s acting like a deranged man who has lost all his senses of responsibility. Unlike Bush’s war in Iraq there is no “coalition of the willing” in Obama’s proposed war in Syria. This telling set back made Obama to suddenly reverse himself after telling the world he needed no Congressional approval to launch the attack citing the War Powers Act, which permits a US president to use military force in such situations for the time being before seeking full authorization from Congress. But Bush, the much vilified US leader on account of Iraqi war adventure, went to UN and to Congress to authorize the Iraqi war with many Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, voting for the war.
However, reveling in his pacifist ideology Obama who is now suddenly hawkish Obama on the very same issue was one of those Democrats who proudly voted against the war in Iraq and promptly used that as a cudgel to bludgeon Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party Primaries. Gushing over his opposition to the Iraq war then candidate Obama taunted thus:
“On the most important national security question since the cold war, I am the only candidate who opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning.”
And that would not be the first time Obama showed his anti-war credentials. Back in a 2002 speech before the Iraqi war then Illinois senator Obama said of G.W Bush plan for war in Iraq against Saddam Hussein, a leader who, just like President Bashir Assad, was accused of gassing his own people to death. Here is Obama in his own words that are now hunting him and pricking his conscience if he has one at all:
“I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of theMiddle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.
“I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president.”
Obama doubled down on his anti-war rhetoric even during the presidential primaries. Let’s take our minds back to the 2007 US presidential election campaigns and recall what then candidate Obama said about the president GW Bush war on Iraq:
“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
His loud mouth VP then senator Joe Biden then a presidential candidate in his own right quipped:
“The president has no constitutional authority to take this country to war… unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked,” and he even went so far as to threaten the impeachment of president Bush with him leading the charge should he fail to seek and obtain Congressional approval.”
It’s needless to add that his new French-looking Secretary of State, Senator John Kerry was himself an anti-war protester during the Vietnam War. Now as earlier stated all three individuals mentioned above are known pacifists suddenly turned hawks overnight and are now loudly beating war drums against Syria for the same exact crime of use of chemical weapons for which Obama refused to authorize war with Saddam in the US senate and had berated Hillary Clinton for. What does that tell you about the character of these three men now pushing the US into war in the Middle East yet again against the wishes of their countrymen and women? Over 70% of Americans are opposed and dead set against the war. There have been anti-war protests in US cities the types John Kerry was involved in during the disastrous Vietnam war.
Although the Democratic controlled Senate might eventually authorize the war since its committee has voted for it, feelers from the US House of Representatives indicate that it might vote against the authorization. In fact, I hear that the vote might be postponed since there are no votes for it as of today. And it’s not at all clear to me even that the full US Senate will vote for it as opposition mounts against the war daily even from Obama’s political base. A recent survey showed that a whopping 70% of Obama’s own liberal base is opposed to the war roughly the same percentage of Americans opposed to the war. And as indicated earlier, NATO has no hand in it neither is the UN Security Council, the only legal authority that can authorize the use of force against a member state like Syria as was the case with Libya. No such authorization has emanated from the UN.
So what is Obama’s authority for the war in Syria? None! At this very moment he absolutely has no legal authority whatsoever either in domestic constitutional law or in international law. Obama is the quintessential outlaw if he goes to war even with Congressional authorization because the US Congress cannot take the place of the UN Security Council in international law. In fact, I would go as far as to state that Congressional authorization, if granted, will be illegal and unconstitutional because Assad has not attacked the United States nor threatened her interests. In fact, the man Assad is fighting against sworn enemies of the United States, Al Queda surrogates and Islamists in Syria. The war with Syria is shaping up to proxy war withIran which supports Assad. Why not deal with Iran directly if Obama is serious in containing Iran’s nuclear ambitions? What is he afraid of Iran for?
No nation has the right to take the laws unto its hands to launch war against another nation in the name of humanitarian considerations without the formal imprimatur of the UN. That is tantamount to the rule of the jungle rather than the rule of law. President Obama the known pacifist until now, should not foist on the United States the label of international outlaw just because he has the means to attack at will. Nations have well established rules for dealing with international issues of war and peace and the last time I checked the UN Charter and its Conventions nowhere is it written that the UN Security Council would outsource its authority to authorize the use of force against any nation to the United States or any other country for that matter, and if there is any such provision it has not been invoked by the UN, which, on the contrary, has denied Obama the use of force against Syria. In fact, as this was going out, reports came out that the EU has told Obama point blank that while evidence (inconclusive) may have pointed to Assad in the use of chemical weapons it is not prepared to act against him without the approval of the UN Security Council. That is the way any law-abiding nations and leaders should behave as no nation or leader is above international law. It’s the rule of law not the rule of men. What part of that Obama doesn’t understand? Rule of law must be respected by all and I thank the EU for coming out strongly for it.
And here is Russian President Vladmir Putin lecturing Obama on international law at the G20 Summit in Russia as reported by RT Online News:
“The use of force on a sovereign state is only possible if it is done for self-defense – and, as we know, Syria is not attacking the US – or under a decision made by the UN Security Council. As one participant in our discussion said, those who act otherwise put themselves outside of law.”
And here comes President Jacob Zuma of South Africa echoing similar sentiment:
“We don’t want the world to be run by individuals, but a collective in the form of the UN. I don’t know if people who are questioning our position on Syria have an alternative.”
Can you imagine Obama rendering the US an international pariah and object of scorn? What a shame! All the BRICS nations, Brazil,Russia, India, China, and South Africa are opposed to the war on Syria including Indonesia the world’s largest Muslim nation.
What is driving Obama into this? It’s geopolitics and sectarian animosities in the Arab world. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait want Assad out of power in order to promote their own version of Islam. What business has Obama in that? Obama is bent on appeasing the Saudi King before whom he once bowed on a visit to the Saudi monarch at the beginning of his presidency to the consternation of many of his compatriots. The Saudi King is one of the major forces driving this adventure against Syria using the chemical attack as pretext. That’s why Obama would not wait on the UN to establish who did it before carrying out Saudi’s orders using the US military. It’s a set up.
And this brings me to Obama and his disastrous foreign policy. A careful analysis of Obama’s foreign policy shows a disturbing allegiance to radical Islamists. The evidence is all over the map. Those who toppled Muammar Gadaffi in Libya had Al-Queda connection and they overthrew Gadaffi with the help of the west with Obama leading from behind as France and Britain led the charge. But guess who paid for that? The United States with the attack on her Embassy and the killing of Ambassador Stephen and other US diplomatic staffs in Benghazi. Today, Libya is a shadow of its former self, a haven for terrorists that have fanned out to other parts of Africa and the Arab world and far that’s worse than Somalia. The terrorists operating in Northern parts of Nigeria, for example, have Libyan connections, no thanks to Obama’s terrorist friendly foreign policy.
When we move on to Egypt, however, the foreign policy dumbness of Obama shows in much bolder relief for all to see. Everyone knew that the Muslim Brotherhood would take over Egypt once President Hosni Mubarak was gone. And Obama knew what the Muslim brotherhood stood for? The very same thing Boko Haram stands for in Nigeria! These were the people Obama helped to gain power in Egypt, and what happened? They quickly moved to implement their Sharia agenda on their way to establishing an Iran-style Islamic theocracy with the US delivering grants, aids, and military equipment to them. President Morsi was Obama man in Egypt.
It should not come as a surprise that when the people rose up again against the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt they were pouring scorn on Obama and the United States in their placards and public utterances. Just like Libya, Egypt is today in a state of total anarchy and guess what, president Hosni Mubarak toppled with the help of Obama and the west has been released from prison and democracy is back in prison in Egypt, again no thanks to Obama’s clueless foreign policy.
Syria is next. How much more dumb and clueless can a president be? Wherever you turn to, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and everywhere else in between, Obama’s foreign policy is unraveling and lacks any focus or strategic bearings. US relations with Russiaare in tatters right now and nothing to write home about with China as well. If Europe of all places could distance itself from Obama in matters like this, it’s clear indication of how fast the world is abandoning Obama, and unfortunately the United States that he’s misleading presently. And the fact that Obama had been spying on US allies in Europe and Asia could not have helped matters, either.
He jumps into wars when no one asks him to and refuses to fight when he’s asked to. He blows hot and cold at the same time like the uncertain, indecisive, and tentative leader that he has become known for. Just when everyone thought the missiles would start flying at Syria after blowing hot, he suddenly pulled back, disappointing his aides, who had prepared the nation for imminent strike in days, after telling the world he needed no congressional approval to strike Syria. Obama doesn’t show that he has the nerve for war and wants to rope in Congress in case the mission fails having boxed himself into a corner.
But will the US Congress be so dumb as to fall for this ploy? The Democratic controlled Senate might but the Republican controlled House of Reps is a different ball game. As indicated earlier, as of now the votes for authorization are not there in the House, and if that holds Obama may be compelled to got it alone or eat a humble pie for his foolery and sudden bravado when he knew he’s a pacifist to the core and not a warrior going in. He’s now acting like somebody forced him to take the decision and denying that that he ever drew a red line for Syria when everyone knew he did a year back and had been reminded of the red line time and again. He’s on record.
Syria might prove to be Obama’s Achilles Heels. Russia is moving warships there and threatening to provide Assad with anti-missile batteries that she had suspended a while ago due to western and Israeli pressures. China is opposed to the war and so are other Arab states. Only Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Kuwait, who want Assad gone in their sectarian rivalry, are urging the US invasion, and of course, the Islamist rebels who will later turn against the US as sure as night follows the day.
This is what is making some to call Obama’s action as being tantamount to using the US military as mercenary army for Saudi Arabia. And the fact that John Kerry has told Americans that Saudi Arabia would pick up the bill for the military action all but confirmed their fears. Obama, as usual, is about to go to bed with those who are butchering Christians and sacking their towns and places of worship as happened in Libya and Egypt before now and happening now in Syria. Obama’s act of helping the rebels to topple Assad is like the US helping Boko Haram to topple President Jonathan, for example, using some humanitarian excuse. It’s that clear cut.
Why Obama is in bed with Islamists beats me hollow. Oh, I forgot he was a Muslim growing up. I didn’t know that once a Muslim always a Muslim! If that is the case then why take sides with the violent fundamentalists always who are sworn enemies of the United States? If you asked me, I would say it’s treasonable felony on the part of Obama to be supporting the enemies of the United States always in case after case with no end in sight. For a supposed Christian that Obama purports to be to always side with Islamic fundamentalists killing Christians requires closer scrutiny, because, it is to say the least, perplexing and incomprehensible. It dovetails into Obama’s ongoing war with Christianity at home in pursuit of his socialist agenda as socialism hates religion, particularly Christianity. This could well be the explanation for Obama’s bizarre and un-seeming anti-Christian behaviors while religiously going to Church on Sundays to hoodwink the unwary from questioning his faith. There’s more to Obama than meets the eyes. What a betrayal!
In conclusion it can be seen that all the makings of a third world war are beginning to crystallize in Syria unless reason prevails in the end. It’s easy to start a war but difficult to end it once it begins and no one knows where it will lead in that volatile part of the world. Obama is about to light a match on a keg of gunpowder. Obama claims he wants to punish Assad for the 1,400 deaths in the chemical attacks the actual source of which has yet to be established before rushing to war. Who does that but someone with a preconceived agenda with no regard to the evidence and proof of culpability even while the UN is still investigating could do that sort of thing.
There are suggestions that the rebels who had been put on the run by Assad lately may have staged the chemical attack and turned around to blame it on Assad knowing it would lead the US taking action against him to the pleasure of the rebels, in which case Obama will be playing right into their hands. In this connection Russia has even provided some evidence. But who exacts punishment on anybody without first establishing guilt, seriously? Obama is practicing the rule of the jungle? No wonder the civilized world is against his pig headed adventure in Syria that even dictatorships like Iran are finding it worth their while to lecture Obama on international law.
What a sad turn irony for the United States of America. How many more deaths of the innocent is Obama willing to cause in the proposed attack on Syria? Or is he deluding himself that there will be no civilian casualties in a US strike. To seek to empower elements of Al-Queda who now undoubtedly form the bulk of the Syrian rebels on some bogus humanitarian pretext is tantamount to working with the enemies of the United States on the part of the Obama administration and I don’t see Congress approving it in a hurry given its present mood. That puts Obama in a quandary from which he will be fighting to extricate himself in the coming days and weeks.
But wait a minute, folks: Is Obama not supposed to be a Nobel Laureate for Peace even before he was sworn in as president of the United States? What a fraudulent award! What did Obama do to qualify for that award? Is it because he spoke against Bush war in Iraq as a potential presidential candidate as indicated above? Is that all there is to land the prize? Give me a break, Sweden! An anti-war, anti-spying, anti-government secrecy activist has been caught pants down doing the very opposite of what he had been condemning so loudly in the past. Sounds to me like the ultimate hypocrite! What more evidence does anybody need to dismiss Obama as one big phony?
Franklin Otorofani, Esq. is a Nigerian trained attorney and public affairs analyst whose writings have appeared in several newspapers and magazines.
Contact: mudiagaone@yahoo.com
The BRICS Post
OGAC 