this is a letter to President Obama,
Id be happy to read any comment, brutal truth please :)
C in Foreign Policy
Dear president Obama,
I have been asking myself when will there be an end to the long lasting civil war in Syria. When will there be an end to cooperating with unstable administrations. When you ran for president in 2008 you hade a vision, a vision to make the Middle East a better place for our children; vision to bring peace. After approximately 8 years being president, I am still wondering how is your foreign policy connects with this line of visionary peace. For the past 8 years there were many opportunities for the United States to take an action and bring peace in the Middle East, many of those situations were handled and were lead in a questionable way. Why?
An action was needed from the United States in March 2011 but the U.S failed to respond. As a response to the "Arab Spring" demonstrators decided to protest peacefully in the streets of Syria about the corruption and human rights abuses. Syria's president Bashar al Assad decided to violently use gunfire to stop the demonstrators from coming out to the street again. According to the New York Times 38 people were killed that day (Michael Slackman, "Syrian Troops Open Fire on Protesters in Several Cities"). As a response you said, "the time has come for Assad to step aside" (Barack Obama, Situation in Syria). The understanding of the situation was right, but the actions need to be taken were wrong. Presidents should control his people and this may be the way Assad chooses to restrain his people but the president of the U.S must take further actions then stating he should step aside;
In February 2012 the U.S took no action in the Syrian region after genocidal attacks over the city of Homs. The people of Homs, known by their disapproval of
Assad's administration; tanks and ground troops encircled the city; planes and helicopters took care of the air zone. After receiving the green light, the regime attacked aggressively the city of Homs. According to "theguardian" 300 people were killed in the 16 hours long attack.(Syrian Siege, Luke Harding, Mona Mahmood and Matthew Weaver, Pag) As a response you condemned the attack and said "Assad has no right to lead Syria, and has lost all legitimacy with his people and the international community". People are losing their lives, home, and children. The Middle East sought action from the U.S but you decided to condemn.
In August 2013, Assad's regime tested out the credibility of your warnings to your "red line", the "red line" of using chemical weapons. According to US News, more than 1400 people were killed in a single attack (The Price of Doing Nothing, Mark Moyar, Pag). I have to admit, It looked like you are going to react aggressively, but as past tested proven you didn't. You let other countries like England decide for you whether it is right to attack or not. As we already know, the U.S battleships withdrew from the Mediterranean and didn't attack Syria's chemical weapons warehouses. This was another time a question mark rises about why didn't you take an action in the Middle East.
Instead of the U.S taking action, Russia intervened. The Russians proposed an offer Assad could not resist. According to "The World Post". Russia, as the greatest ally of Syria, offered help to "destroy and supervise" chemical weapons (Russian Proposal, n, pag). If you know the figures in this story you know it is not true. Putin who holds the same traits as Assad's; kindly offers help? You should have been attacking his chemical weapons, no matter the consequences. When you let Russia intervene you strong-armed Russia over The U.S. Why did you take a path that will undermine the United States in the Middle East region?
The U.S should have chosen a different path of action but some media sources claim the opposite. For example, Fareed Zakaria from the Washington Post writes: "if the goal is to intervene in Syria to kill jihadi forces, it places the United States in the same camp as Assad." (U.S Intervention is Not the Answer, Fareed Zakaria, Pag). Zakaria describes how violent Assad is and he dares to put the U.S military in the same sentence as Syria's regime. Zakaria elaborates more about if there will be an easy solution to identify the moderate Syrians, protect and strengthens them it will be ok, but this solution doesn't exist. On top of Fareed's words Andrew J, Bacevich asks what will another intervention do? Will it just be as all the 13 others made since 1980? (We'll Still Lose the Bigger War, Andrew J. Bacevich, n, Pag). According to the Washington Post you succeeded when you didn't put boots on the ground in Syria. Bacevich's claims that both using drones and commando raids as well as putting boots on the ground will not make a difference.
The nuclear deal with Iran must come up, the biggest achievement in the Middle East according to your words. "the United States, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not" (Statement on Iran, Barack Obama, Pag). The deal may be a good path when making the deal with a stable and not a dangerous administration as Iran's. The deal puts the greatest ally of the U.S in danger for the coming 15 years. Why would the president of the U.S make a nuclear agreement with the administration of such an unstable country as Iran?
The nuclear deal provides billions of dollars to an unstable and terror supporting administration. The same Unstable administration who declared the "there will be no Israel in 25 years". The administration is unstable and you are giving it money, money that can be manipulated to terror funding. According to CNN, the deal is done with a country, which didn't even admit she has a nuclear program ("The danger of the Iran deal, Joni Ernst, pag). You are putting your faith in a country that is lead by radicalism, which the U.S is against. Moreover, Iran is a direct advocate of Bashar al Assad's regime; Iran provides six billion dollars annually to support el-Assad's regime, the support of the same regime you are fighting against in a different venue. Why did you choose to support and make such a deal with a country, which holds the opposite traits as the U.S?
The advocate of this path will say that there are benefits of this deal, CNN writer Trita Parsi writes why a deal is good for the U.S, "firstly, it will prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb; secondly, it will prevent a disastrous war with Iran" (5 Reasons Why The Deal is Good, Trita Parsi, pag). In addition the deal lets the international community to monitor the nuclear capabilities of Iran all time and If Iran wont comply with these rules, sanction will be stated and beyond. According to the Whitehouse description of the deal, the deal will reduce the number of Iran's installed centrifuges by two thirds, it will increase the time it would take Iran acquire enough material for nuclear bomb and it will prevent Iran from producing weapon-grade plutonium. As the white house presents it, the path taken towards an agreement with Iran is a good and safe deal to maintain the status quo in the Middle East. (Historic Nuclear Deal With Iran, Whitehouse, pag)
To conclude with, being president of the United States plays a strategic role in foreign policy, the role contains making decisions that are hard and not as pleasant as one would expect them to be; but those decisions are inevitable. The events set up in Middle East for the past 8 years is a direct result of the inaction or taking the diplomatic role in the Middle East which you could prevent; whether it is a chemical attack, bombing a city or threating to demolish an ally country you could intervene and prevent it. I am still wondering why were those paths taken, what are the benefits of taking such paths?
Id be happy to read any comment, brutal truth please :)
C in Foreign Policy
Dear president Obama,
I have been asking myself when will there be an end to the long lasting civil war in Syria. When will there be an end to cooperating with unstable administrations. When you ran for president in 2008 you hade a vision, a vision to make the Middle East a better place for our children; vision to bring peace. After approximately 8 years being president, I am still wondering how is your foreign policy connects with this line of visionary peace. For the past 8 years there were many opportunities for the United States to take an action and bring peace in the Middle East, many of those situations were handled and were lead in a questionable way. Why?
An action was needed from the United States in March 2011 but the U.S failed to respond. As a response to the "Arab Spring" demonstrators decided to protest peacefully in the streets of Syria about the corruption and human rights abuses. Syria's president Bashar al Assad decided to violently use gunfire to stop the demonstrators from coming out to the street again. According to the New York Times 38 people were killed that day (Michael Slackman, "Syrian Troops Open Fire on Protesters in Several Cities"). As a response you said, "the time has come for Assad to step aside" (Barack Obama, Situation in Syria). The understanding of the situation was right, but the actions need to be taken were wrong. Presidents should control his people and this may be the way Assad chooses to restrain his people but the president of the U.S must take further actions then stating he should step aside;
In February 2012 the U.S took no action in the Syrian region after genocidal attacks over the city of Homs. The people of Homs, known by their disapproval of
Assad's administration; tanks and ground troops encircled the city; planes and helicopters took care of the air zone. After receiving the green light, the regime attacked aggressively the city of Homs. According to "theguardian" 300 people were killed in the 16 hours long attack.(Syrian Siege, Luke Harding, Mona Mahmood and Matthew Weaver, Pag) As a response you condemned the attack and said "Assad has no right to lead Syria, and has lost all legitimacy with his people and the international community". People are losing their lives, home, and children. The Middle East sought action from the U.S but you decided to condemn.
In August 2013, Assad's regime tested out the credibility of your warnings to your "red line", the "red line" of using chemical weapons. According to US News, more than 1400 people were killed in a single attack (The Price of Doing Nothing, Mark Moyar, Pag). I have to admit, It looked like you are going to react aggressively, but as past tested proven you didn't. You let other countries like England decide for you whether it is right to attack or not. As we already know, the U.S battleships withdrew from the Mediterranean and didn't attack Syria's chemical weapons warehouses. This was another time a question mark rises about why didn't you take an action in the Middle East.
Instead of the U.S taking action, Russia intervened. The Russians proposed an offer Assad could not resist. According to "The World Post". Russia, as the greatest ally of Syria, offered help to "destroy and supervise" chemical weapons (Russian Proposal, n, pag). If you know the figures in this story you know it is not true. Putin who holds the same traits as Assad's; kindly offers help? You should have been attacking his chemical weapons, no matter the consequences. When you let Russia intervene you strong-armed Russia over The U.S. Why did you take a path that will undermine the United States in the Middle East region?
The U.S should have chosen a different path of action but some media sources claim the opposite. For example, Fareed Zakaria from the Washington Post writes: "if the goal is to intervene in Syria to kill jihadi forces, it places the United States in the same camp as Assad." (U.S Intervention is Not the Answer, Fareed Zakaria, Pag). Zakaria describes how violent Assad is and he dares to put the U.S military in the same sentence as Syria's regime. Zakaria elaborates more about if there will be an easy solution to identify the moderate Syrians, protect and strengthens them it will be ok, but this solution doesn't exist. On top of Fareed's words Andrew J, Bacevich asks what will another intervention do? Will it just be as all the 13 others made since 1980? (We'll Still Lose the Bigger War, Andrew J. Bacevich, n, Pag). According to the Washington Post you succeeded when you didn't put boots on the ground in Syria. Bacevich's claims that both using drones and commando raids as well as putting boots on the ground will not make a difference.
The nuclear deal with Iran must come up, the biggest achievement in the Middle East according to your words. "the United States, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not" (Statement on Iran, Barack Obama, Pag). The deal may be a good path when making the deal with a stable and not a dangerous administration as Iran's. The deal puts the greatest ally of the U.S in danger for the coming 15 years. Why would the president of the U.S make a nuclear agreement with the administration of such an unstable country as Iran?
The nuclear deal provides billions of dollars to an unstable and terror supporting administration. The same Unstable administration who declared the "there will be no Israel in 25 years". The administration is unstable and you are giving it money, money that can be manipulated to terror funding. According to CNN, the deal is done with a country, which didn't even admit she has a nuclear program ("The danger of the Iran deal, Joni Ernst, pag). You are putting your faith in a country that is lead by radicalism, which the U.S is against. Moreover, Iran is a direct advocate of Bashar al Assad's regime; Iran provides six billion dollars annually to support el-Assad's regime, the support of the same regime you are fighting against in a different venue. Why did you choose to support and make such a deal with a country, which holds the opposite traits as the U.S?
The advocate of this path will say that there are benefits of this deal, CNN writer Trita Parsi writes why a deal is good for the U.S, "firstly, it will prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb; secondly, it will prevent a disastrous war with Iran" (5 Reasons Why The Deal is Good, Trita Parsi, pag). In addition the deal lets the international community to monitor the nuclear capabilities of Iran all time and If Iran wont comply with these rules, sanction will be stated and beyond. According to the Whitehouse description of the deal, the deal will reduce the number of Iran's installed centrifuges by two thirds, it will increase the time it would take Iran acquire enough material for nuclear bomb and it will prevent Iran from producing weapon-grade plutonium. As the white house presents it, the path taken towards an agreement with Iran is a good and safe deal to maintain the status quo in the Middle East. (Historic Nuclear Deal With Iran, Whitehouse, pag)
To conclude with, being president of the United States plays a strategic role in foreign policy, the role contains making decisions that are hard and not as pleasant as one would expect them to be; but those decisions are inevitable. The events set up in Middle East for the past 8 years is a direct result of the inaction or taking the diplomatic role in the Middle East which you could prevent; whether it is a chemical attack, bombing a city or threating to demolish an ally country you could intervene and prevent it. I am still wondering why were those paths taken, what are the benefits of taking such paths?