Should We Go To War to Save Obama’s Reputation as a Warrior?
If you can stomach a few minutes of Chris Matthews, right at the end of the clip, he all but says that is what the vote is about, to save Obama’s reputation.
That is of course not reason to go to war. Syria offers no national interest to fight for and in fact, allowing the Assad regime and fanatical Muslim rebels to kill each for years, in fact, is the only national interest we have there.
Sure, it is sad that people have been killed by a bad, evil man, but if that is a reason to go to war, then we should be invading North Korea, Nigeria, Liberia, Kenya and so this moment, because people are dying every day in these places as well at the hands of rotten people an groups. Feeling sorry for folks isn’t a reason to go war, unless of course you want to be involved perpetually in dozens of countries around the world.
What really is at stake here, is the reputation of the United States. Obama has proven to be, on the whole, a weak foreign policy president. Our enemies know this and lobbing a few missiles into Syria isn’t going to change that. This nation will have to endure three more years of captain who remains below deck while the ship of state is rudderless.
What we can save, though is the Republic. A king uses his army to create or enhance a reputation, but we don’t have a king. The United States has a citizen leader, bound the Constitution and the people.
Reigning in Obama’s seemingly “divine right” to do as he sees fit style of governance and reestablishing limits on the executive would in fact save the reputation of the United States and send a message that we retain some vestige of virtue in our civic affairs.