If Obama loses Syrian congressional vote, should America defend his red line?

By Kevin Fobbs

The red line in the sand was drawn by President Obama in August of 2012, and it was at that point he committed America to a rendezvous with war in Syria. The president only managed to respond publically in the hopes that the mainstream media and the liberals in the nation would view his tepid response as being presidential.

The president said this nearly as flippantly as he has commented on other pressing domestic or foreign issues, in the hope that his obedient mainstream media would ignore it and move on to shoring up his then re-election bid against challenger Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

Since then, the president's red line has moved with each international focus on the Syrian civil war conflict. In each event, Obama has kicked the can down the road. Several times this year when it was clear that according to international chemical weapon experts the deadly weapons of mass destruction were used, Obama feigned responsibility. This was not a failure to act, but a failure to lead.

Meanwhile, during his absence on the international stage as America's Commander in Chief, he looked the other way as 100,000 plus Syrians died in the conflict. He first spoke about regime change in 2011, during the Syrian street demonstrations, but did little else, but played golf and found new and innovative ways to circumvent the U.S. Constitution.

Now, with the world watching Obama could not kick the can down the road because videos surfaced showing 1,400 Syrian victims of Sarin of a gas attack. The horror of seeing women and children murdered by yet unproven rebel or government officials had to move Obama to unavoidable action. Now in front of the entire nation and the world he had to accept responsibility for his own August 2012 words which have come back to haunt him.

Yet, he even managed to dither back and forth about what he said and what he meant. In each incarnation of Obama's remembrance of how he would punish Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, he somehow could not make up his mind about sending Assad a well telegraphed love tap of missiles to keep him in line, while the Syrian president moved all of his military assets and chemical stockpiles.

While Obama could not determine which account of the red line he would erase next, country after country, including Britain have decided he had not made the case for war. In fact, according to the Washington Post they found 208 solid no votes against Obama's war resolution. Even as late as Sunday afternoon, ABC News has the House members leaning heavily in favor of voting the Syrian military use resolution down to defeat.

But, underneath Obama's motives lies the real story unfortunately for America and its military troops. The real story is that there will quite possibly, Obama will ignore a congressional rejection of Obama and his resolution to attack Syria. An embarrassed and presidentially weakened Obama may move for an escalation of military action and war to follow, which most likely will end in American boots on the ground.

The Russians through their diplomats have already committed to action on the side of Syria if America attacks without United Nation's approval, which former President Bush received before going to war against Iraq and Afghanistan.

In fact, according to the newspaper the Guardian, the Russian government has sent a missile cruiser to the eastern Mediterranean which will soon be accompanied by a Russian destroyer and frigate. The escalation will continue with possible military responses against Israel from Iran.

Obama can lamely claim that he acted against Libya without any international fallout or consternation as an excuse to attack Syria. Yet, this type of military action by Obama in Syria is different than the Libyan attack by Obama, which the Russians and the Chinese and the Iranian government merely had a passing interest in. All three are major allies, of Syria and are standing firm while Obama is essentially isolated from the international community as well.

So where does that leave America and its precious national treasure? Are families, fathers, mothers, children and communities ready and willing to commit the lives of their family members to sacrifice in a war that is over a red line that the president has already erased?

Last Wednesday, while speaking at a press conference in Sweden, Obama took his great big verbal eraser and obliterated his previous comments and ownership of the red line in the Syrian sand. According to Friday's Washington Post fact checking account, he stated "I didn't set a red line. The world set a red line." He even went further to deny any ownership of his own previous statements and concluded that "My credibility is not on the line. The international community's credibility is on the line."

America now has a president who, unlike Truman, Kennedy, Roosevelt, Reagan and both Bushes is not just afraid to be presidential and stand on his word, but cowers from responsibility.

Therefore, any military action going forward is not to defend the national security of the United States, but to repair the foolish misguided verbal indulgences of a man who denies responsibility.

The nation would be well served for Congress to deny his resolution to go to engage in military action in Syria and let him go it alone. It is not America's reputation on the line. It is Obama's reputation and it is his war.

( Let me know what you think )

© Kevin Fobbs