While the recent increase of attention to the ongoing carnage in Syria is a welcome change from the Obama administration’s collective state of denial over the past ten months, signals remain mixed, and our policy is unclear if not non-existent. This week alone, for example, we got the welcome news that the Pentagon is preparing military options on Syria for the President, but at the same time White House press secretary announced those options will not be exercised. The waters have been further muddied by the President’s insistence that there is no parity between the situation in Libya last year and what we face now in Syria. In Libya, the threat to civilians and opportunity to topple a vicious dictator were sufficient cause for Mr. Obama to engage the U.S. military, even without a pressing national security interest at stake. While it can be argued that once the U.S. engaged in Libya it might have been preferable to lead from the front to secure weapons stockpiles and guard against al Qaida encroachment, the fact remains that the world is a better place with Colonel Qaddafi gone, as Mr. Obama routinely reminds us. Meanwhile, as many as ten times the civilians killed in Libya before NATO’s intervention have died in Syria over the last year. Bashir Assad is no less cruel and repressive a tyrant than Muammar Qaddafi. The threat of Syria’s unknown stockpiles of WMD falling into bad hands demands our urgent attention. And, above all, the United States has a clear strategic interest in toppling this vital ally of Iran. But Syria is somehow different, and not worthy of the same sort of military assistance we offered to the Libyan rebels. Rather than taking decisive action in the form of military aid through our purported ally Turkey (perhaps in August when the President issued a statement calling for Assad’s ouster on his way out of town for vacation), the U.S. has remained on the diplomatic equivalent of a hamster wheel. From the ill-advised resumption of “normal” relations with Syria last January through the pathetic failure of the Security Council resolution this weekend, our efforts to resolve the situation have been futile wastes of time and energy as the slaughter in Syria goes on to the tune of 100 people a day. In dealing with Libya and Syria, consistency need not be the hobgoblin of little minds but can rather be the hallmark of a consistent and coordinated foreign policy. There are equivalencies to be drawn between the two crises, and once these are recognized we should take equivalent action. It is not a decision to be taken lightly, but we would not be alone and the cause is just. We have the unified support of our European and Arab allies. We have moral and strategic interests at stake. Rather than whining about the shocking moral turpitude of the United Nations, the President of the United States needs to remember his responsibilities as the leader of the free world–and lead.
Read this article:
Is Syria Really “Different?”
President Obama will pardon the Thanksgiving turkey ( Politico ) Obama will press for an extension of the payroll tax holiday ( New York Times ) The possibility of the sequester’s cuts taking effect has taken the Pentagon off-guard ( New York Times ) The federal government has sued Utah over new immigration law ( USA Today ) Mitt Romney will make a rare Des Moines campaign stop today ( KCCI Des Moines ) 60 second recap of last night’s debate: On the main site: Newt Misses His Moment , by
The supercommittee is expected to announce this afternoon that it has failed ( Washington Post ) Both parties hope to twist the supercommittee’s failure to their advantage ( Politico ) President Obama will sign bill creating tax breaks intended to spur hiring of veterans ( Politico ) Michelle Obama was booed at a NASCAR event over the weekend ( The Hill ) New York man charged with plotting to detonate pipe bombs in New York city was influenced by al-Awlaki ( New York Times ) Newt Gingrich unloads both barrels on Occupy Wall Street: On the main site: Super Dud , by
While Democrats don’t often concern themselves with too much government spending, the one place you often see consternation is in defense spending. As a percentage of federal spending, defense has constituted around 20 percent of total spending, and is one of the largest (often the largest) single categorical source of spending. Regardless, we conservatives typically apologize for bloated military spending, because we think that national defense is a more legitimate function of government than the provision of a social safety net. Nevertheless, the deficit-cutting “Supercommittee” was set up so that, if they cannot come to a compromise plan, spending gets cut across the board, including significant defense-spending cuts. And as the supercommittee barrels towards failure, Leon Panetta, President Obama’s Secretary of Defense, is worried about the cuts his department faces . With Congress’ supercommittee stymied, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned Thursday of a “paper tiger” Pentagon if the panel fails to agree on a deficit-reduction plan and automatic spending cuts take effect as a result beginning in 2013. The supercommittee has until Nov. 23 to agree on a deficit-reduction package of at least $1.2 trillion over a decade. Any amount less than that would be made up in across-the-board cuts divided evenly between defense and domestic programs. If the committee failed entirely, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office, the Pentagon would have about $450 billion less to spend over the next 10 years than current projections, leaving it with nearly $600 billion at its disposal in 2021. Considering that the debt-ceiling agreement signed by President Obama put Sec. Panetta in this situation in the first place, one has to imagine that most Democrats aren’t actually troubled by the defense cuts facing DoD. And Republicans made the deal as well. The choices for the Supercommittee – made by leadership of both parties in Congress – were clearly made without nods to compromise. The failure of the Supercommittee to come up with a compromise plan is likely to lead to pretty deep defense cuts – something that both Leon Panetta and Republicans will have to deal with.
Visit link:
As Supercommittee Faces Failure, Both Parties Have to Deal With Defense Cuts
