President Barack Obama’s credibility is on the ropes once again. This week, the President’s buddy and first round pickfor the imminent Federal Reserve Chairman opening, was forced to withdraw his nomination amidst vehement opposition within the Democratic Party. Despite the world’s recognition that President Bashar al-Assad has been encouraging vicious civil warfare, American fair-weather friend and Assad's ally, Vladimir Putin, is being hailed champion of diplomacy for his support of Assad’s potential surrender of chemical weapons by mid-2014. In the meantime, Iranian President, Hassan Rowhani, has publicly reaffirmed his supportof Assad and declared that now is the “opportunetime to take new action regarding the West's contentions over the Iranian regime's nuclear program.” His country will not stop enriching uranium.
Congress dodged a bureaucratic bullet last week when Obama decided to postpone a vote that would gauge its sentiments over sending more troops to the Middle East. The polls suggest that had the issue gone to Congress, the President would have almost certainly lost face as the war-weary officials would have voted not to act. But is it really in our best interest to remain complacent?
Personally, I stood in favor of President Barack Obama’s plan for a limited military strike. Though the President and I differ on many issues, I felt that turning a blind eye to such terrorism would be both politically and militarily irresponsible.We're living in a world where countries are trying to assert their military power, often at the cost of innocent lives. What we don’t lose in lives, we lose in material resources. Our military presence in several countries along with the recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq has created a huge financial burden on our country. We are still slowly emerging from the Great Recession, and I understand that the cost of a new military strike may be prohibitive as it's an issue of delicately balancing the cost of action versus the cost of reaction.I believe that we have to assert a proactive approach to dealing with terrorist regimes like Assad's. Otherwise, they will see our lack of action as a green light to pursue their cause.President Obama explicitly called the use of chemical weapons, “a red line” that would not be crossed without severe repercussions. America’s tolerance for chemical weapons use abroad would open the U.S. up to potential chemical and nuclear warfare at home.
Ultimately, the world is watching. What we do next will be marked in history and will directly affect our ability to preserve democracy and the American standard of living – the standard that makes our nation great.
Check back for updates on the Syrian crisis and other issues.While you're at it, join the conversation and give me your feedback by following me on Twitter andFacebook.