Americans support Obama's refusal to strike on Syria
Cooperation with Russia on the Syrian issue gives Obama a chance to keep the leadership of the Democrats
Obama's decision to renounce the use of force against Syria was supported by ordinary Americans. But, at the same time, a large part of the political elite could not accept half-hearted U.S. actions in the Middle East. The Republican Party has already announced what their first step in the fight against President Obama will be. They are going to hit the weakest point - the U.S. budget which has already been the reason for the persistent conflict for many years.
John Boehner, the leader of the Republicans in the House of Representatives, says in the very near future there will be a vote to pass a law that allows the U.S. government to continue borrowing. Boehner says the law will uphold the sharp automatic budget cuts made earlier this year and cancel the Obama's health system reform known as ObamaCare. "We will do everything to cancel the failed health care reform initiated by the President. This week, the House of Representatives will adopt a resolution that locks the sequester savings and defunds ObamaCare," promised the politician.
In response, the U.S. President speaking at a round table of influential American businessmen accused the Republicans that they use the national economy in their political games. The President said, "You have never seen in the history of the United States, the debt ceiling - or the threat of not raising the debt ceiling - being used to extort a president or a governing party. And trying to force issues that have nothing to do with budget and have nothing to do with the debt."
According to him, the reputation and creditworthiness of the United States becomes a bargaining chip in the political games of the Republicans. "It's irresponsible," summed up Obama.
On the eve of the Senate vote on Syrian issue, the Democrats and their leader Obama found themselves in a difficult situation. Obama's decisive action on the Syrian track did not find any support in the international community or among U.S. allies. If the vote in the Senate had passed like in Britain and hadn't supported the strike, then control of the situation by the U.S. administration would have been lost.
It's not just that the incident with chemical weapons in Huta was obviously provocative, and there was no evidence of Assad's fault. We have already seen such things in Iraq. Then the public believed General Colin Powell who had just demonstrated the test tube, allegedly with samples of Iraq's chemical weapons. The thing is the chaos in Afghanistan, daily bombings in Iraq, civil war in Libya demonstrate that the struggle for human rights accompanied by the use of military means does not improve the situation and, on the contrary, has the opposite effect.
In the absence of public support of military solution to the Syrian crisis among Americans, Russia's proposal to resolve the conflict peacefully by transferring chemical weapons under international control was mainly salutary for the Democrats who were confidently losing votes. The solution proposed by Moscow has dramatically changed the political situation in the United States.
Survey data show that two-thirds of the U.S. citizens have supported Obama's decision to cancel the strikes on Syria providing an opportunity for the international community to find a diplomatic solution. The majority of Americans approved of harsh rhetoric against Syria and recognized that Damascus's decision to transfer chemical weapons under international control was Obama's merit.
Although a large part of the U.S. political elite and the conservative-minded citizens still prefer to blame Russia for their troubles, we should recognize that the Russian proposal helped Democrats to save their position, continue the political struggle and gave them a chance to compete in the next presidential race.