U.S. ' gunboat diplomacy' prevails in Syria!
As the people of the world question the effectiveness of a second term U.S. president with a rather checkered political diplomacy record, it's apparent that a major pending international conflict has been avoided without deploying U.S. military forces. And, it wouldn’t have happened without Obama‘s initiated show of force.
While those outside the inner circle can only speculate as to the intricacies of the political chess match that led to the Russian, Syrian compromise proposal, it is known, that following President Obama’s G20 conference visit with Putin and other world leaders, political commentator Charlie Rose interviewed Syrian President Bashar aL-Assad at his Presidential Palace inside Damascus.
Assad hadn’t granted an interview to a western journalist in three years. That was Sunday morning. By Monday evening much of the world had watched an interview that would enforce the doubts of millions as to the justifications and the benefits of a U.S. military intervention in the Syrian conflict.
Later, Rose would state that the interview had been in the works for months. Perhaps, but the timing of the event couldn’t have been more fortuitous.
Within hours, the collective voice of a nation and a world shell shocked by never ending war, spoke up, and Congress buckled under the pressure of a constituency that said no!
In danger of exhibiting a new awareness as to the pitfalls of an unprovoked attack, as Assad had stated, a majority of Americans no longer wished to participate in any war, much less one in Syria.
By Monday evening it was stated by both political party leaders that a winning vote in Congress was not likely. And, that the president would settle for a yes vote in the Senate, as a justification for unilateral attack on yet another sovereign nation without direct provocation. With his conditional ‘red line in the sand’ Obama would make the call that some in Syria claimed would ignite world war 3.
As Assad stated in the Rose interview: When asked about retaliation on the United States in response to the threatened attack on Syria? " Yes, you can expect everything!" Retaliation from the region was all but guaranteed. An attack on U.S. foreign interest? Absolutely!
Suddenly, political posturing took on the look of an artful dodger. The art of double talk was taken to a new level as the possibility of a diplomatic solution surfaced through the Russian proposal to collect and destroy Syria’s chemical weapons stock.
While the right side of Obama’s talking head was spewing pending war threats and promises of impending doom, the left was entertaining a possible diplomatic compromise; via his arch nemesis Russia’s President Vladimir Putin.
Like him or not, President. Assad effectively generated a cloud of doubt that hung over the pending Congressional proceedings scheduled for Wednesday. Was the Assad regime guilty of using chemical weapons on Syrian civilians, or was the heinous act outlawed by long standing international law perpetrated by the rebel forces in the hopes of pulling the United States military into the conflict?
Or, was the world teleplay produced by the Obama administration in cooperation with Putin and Assad? A game plan that effectively averted what had been labeled an inevitable attack by the White House; while distancing President Barack Obama from yet another clash with Congress and an international diplomatic downgrade; resulting in the further diminishing of the United States image abroad.
While the debate continues in Congress, the vote on the president's proposal, originally scheduled for Wednesday, has been delayed by the Speaker of the House.