Comment: I support Ben Swann, but not the guest's article

(See in situ)

I support Ben Swann, but not the guest's article

I support Ben Swann. I believe in the Truth in Media project. I have donated and will continue to as I believe an "upscale delivery mechanism" of truth is needed. HOWEVER, after reading and digesting, (or at least trying to), Ceylan Ozbudak's guest article, I cannot agree with the author's conclusions. And that's alright. I don't hope to, nor do I strive to, agree with everyone's opinions on every subject--much less a topic as hot as Syria or the Middle East. While I appreciate the fairly thorough background that the author believes she has offered, by the time I had reached the end of the page, I felt I had been apologized to. I had been apologized to on behalf of Obama.

Here's a link to the guest article on

She writes:

When Obama arrived in Washington DC, a man with no military background found himself the Commander-In-Chief of two wars. To surge or not to surge, that was the question. Although he was able to extract the United States from these engagements, conflict in Libya soon awaited. Limited in his involvement, the President soon found himself in plenty of controversy surrounding events during and after this engagement. War has become the President’s Gordian Knot. And the conflict in Syria has now become its latest twist. No sooner is he able to leave one conflict, he becomes ensnared in yet another. Oh what a tangled web he weaves.

...Even Secretary Kerry has grown frustrated, arguing vigorously in a high-level situation room meeting this past Wednesday for air strikes directly against Syrian regime military targets. It’s not a stretch to imagine, with so much pressure building up on the President Obama from so many places, he feels not like the captain of his own ship on this issue, but rather more like someone about to be asked to walk the plank.

It is clear President Obama has been trying to exercise prudence in this matter. He stands in considerable contrast to his predecessor, George W. Bush, who rarely found a war he did not wish to join, if not begin. President Obama’s preferred pace of action is similar to the way an elderly person drives in the slow lane on the expressway. President Bush was a man who would speed down the highway going 150km/h before looking back and realizing he forgot his car.

Poor fellow, he's being forced into doing things he really doesn't want to do. I just don't buy it. His foreign policy has been a bloody one--not that much different from his predecessor. I believe the only reason he has hesitated in being fully engaged in Syria, is Russia.

The bottom line, the article supports America's intervention into this conflict--another sectarian conflict that I believe the CIA has exacerbated--intentionally. There are many more layers to be peeled back that the author hasn't revealed--or perhaps hasn't discovered--as yet.

Is President Obama willing to win this staring contest against the Russians, and make direct strikes against the regime in order to end this conflict sooner? From everything we have seen so far, it appears he is not even close to taking this decision.

If President Obama isn’t willing to commit to the kind of mission necessary to resolve the conflict in the favor of the side he has chosen to support, it’s reasonable to ask why he has chosen to soil himself in this conflict in the first place. According to a recent NBC/WSJ poll, only 15% of Americans favor military action in Syria. Only 11% favor the arming of the opposition fighters. Fortunately for President Obama, he is in his last term, so he has the luxury of going against public opinion on issues he believes to be of great importance. Even Roosevelt defied the US public opinion and went to war against Hitler. It was the right thing to do. It would seem apparent the President believes the interests of US allies in the region are best served by US intervention. But what is the goal of his actions, exactly?

But the clock is still ticking and it’s not too late. The people of the Middle East deserve their stability, their own free trade, a free travel environment like the European Union employs, but based on their warm morality, which comes from the morality of normative Islam. Therefore, if President Obama helps the people of Middle East build their own unity, he will score a tremendous amount of points with the people here. He will prove the US is not against the whole Muslim world but only against bigotry and extremism, which can flourish in any other belief system or ideology. He will make sure these countries will be able to establish their own monetary funds and won’t be dependent on Western help during their transition to democracy.

Sadly, if the author believes that America's involvement in the region is to "save those who are unable to save themselves", I believe she is terribly misguided and has accepted too much of this government's foreign policy rhetoric/propaganda.

And she concludes by declaring, "I support President Obama’s decision to make an American intervention in Syria. I simply wish it had come so much sooner."

I can think of no better rationale for intervention than to save those who are unable to save themselves, from a brutality they did not invite, from an evil they did not appoint, and from an ending they do not deserve.

I support President Obama’s decision to make an American intervention in Syria. I simply wish it had come so much sooner. Like many others, I have high hopes for the future of Syria and the way this conflict might end, but enough realism to understand this may not in fact come to pass exactly as I wish. But I believe just because we can not accomplish everything, does not mean we should not try to accomplish something. Although I would prefer for regional nations to be able to handle their own affairs and solve their own problems in a way specific to their cultures, the might and experience of America does indeed sometimes make it an indispensable nation in resolving global conflicts.

This decision did not require Alexander’s wit and creativity. It only required the American President to summon the courage of his convictions and apply it to the problems of his day. There is indeed a time to walk, but there also a time to run. As William Shedd noted, “A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for. The Syrian people have shown great courage and ample amounts of bold action. I look forward in the coming days to seeing if the United States and their allies in the international community can act with equal conviction and help the people of Syria find a path to the liberty they seek.

If I am misguided in my assessment of Ceylan Ozbudak's article, I would invite admonishment and added direction on the subject.

What do you think?