I have read and heard a great deal of criticism surrounding President Barack Obama's handling of Syria. I have found the partisan criticism to be lacking any credible alternatives. There has been criticism of form, not of substance.
President Obama has kept the U.S. military out of the Syrian conflict for two years, despite saber-rattling by Republican/Conservative pundits who alternately want him to do something and then nothing. The politicians and pundits who call for bombing Iran's nuclear program refuse to support our president in a measured confrontation to Iran's ally regarding chemical weapons.
Despite the wishful thinking of President Obama's political critics who fancy a good guys vs. bad guys approach, the world is a complicated place and has not been under U.S. control for quite some time.
Here are some questions for Obama's critics: Would you have stayed out of direct military intervention for the past two years? Would you have looked away when Syrian President Bashar Assad's chemical weapons were used on civilians? Would you have asked Congress to back the use of military force?
President Obama's measured approach and credible military threat is the only reason a diplomatic solution is on the table. Overall, the president's critics on Syria usually contradict themselves one week to the next and blame him for lacking control over a world they no longer want to police. On the big things, on the substance, the president has been right about Syria.
Robert Millman
Scotia