Idealogical consistency is admirable, political expediency-- not so much. McCain, a decorated veteran, has supported military action under both Republican and Democratic administrations. The Pauls, father and son, have been as forthright in opposing intervention.
Progressives have been challenged. Many oppose bombing as they have opposed other uses of force. While others, including the President, are propelled by concern over the flaunting of the international ban on the use of chemical weapons. But in a corollary to Obama's cost benefit analysis based foreign policy, progressives understand another mercantile concept, you break it, you own it. Last night the president made clear that air strikes would have a limited objective, with responsibility for Syria remaining with Syrians.
Republican chicken hawks are flying in circles. Hatred of the president is the only air beneath their wings. Supporters of unlimited warfare in Iraq, where weapons of mass destruction were an illusion, stridently oppose limited bombings in Syrian, where WMD's are a harsh, deadly reality.
If they oppose a military solution, then clearly these Republicans must support a diplomatic resolution. Again, not so much. They condemn Obama for considering a Russian proposal, which, if sincere and successful, would place Syrian chemical weapons under international control. The rub is not the terms of a possible deal, but that it is a Putin proposal. "We are allowing Russia to dictate American foreign policy," they shout on Fox. Who else? Syria is a Russian client state. Short of pounding Assad in to submission, the only path to the bargaining table is Russian pressure.
Chicken hawks are pooping all over themselves. Hopefully, the smell of mendacity will awaken the electorate.
No comments:
Post a Comment