- Published on Wednesday, 11 September 2013 23:25
- Written by Super User
By CHARLIE ALLO
The Syria question is one more example of how the government manipulates the general public to get the populace to support an action that isn’t in the best interest of the United States. Any time an action is taken that has a real potential of involving the nation in a war of unknown proportions, the country should exercise great care to cover all the potential outcomes and its ability to cope with the various outcomes. The evaluation should have nothing to do with the reasoning behind the intended action, too often the rationale for getting into a war is not the one that is presented to the public, and there is no point in debating the multiplicity of possible reasons for the action. The President is asking the U.S. Congress and the general public to support an act of war against a country that has not taken any aggressive action against the U.S. or any nation that we have a mutual protection treaty with.
The President’s position is that Syria has committed an act that most of the world’s nations have considered to be an abhorrent act that cannot be condoned by the civilized world, but the use of this unacceptable form of warfare has been used a number of times by various nations around the world, and the nations that signed this document failed to take action of any kind to punish the offenders. The document does not call for the nations that are signees to the document to go to war with the offending nation. The President has taken it upon himself to suggest that in the case of Syria this requires the U.S. to show its displeasure for this offense by taking an action that can only be termed as an act of war. There are numerous actions, short of war, that could be taken to show our nation’s disapproval of this form of warfare; many of these methods may have a greater likelihood of being acceptable to the other signees of the document that the President is basing his justification on for an act of war.
The President’s position is being sold to the public in a variety ways that do not contribute to the sound reasoning required for getting involved in the act being put forth by the President. One of the reasons being presented has to do with the inhumane killing of some 1,400 people, many of whom were young children; the sight of these children is suppose to move individuals emotionally to make the populace want to take an action that punishes the perpetrators of this horrific deed, but there is no assurance that in taking the action the president is suggesting that we won’t be exceeding the number of innocent citizens and children that were killed by the perpetrators of this unacceptable deed, the intended course of action is illogical, and will only serve to dishonor our nations.
Another technique that the President applies is the use of terms that require the recipient to accept the value of the term without checking to see if due diligence was applied to the process, a person might be excused if the statement came from a person that has an exceptionally good track record, but it is reasonable to question these broad generalizations given the President’s track record and the nature of the action he is asking the Nation to take.
One can expect the President to launch a vigorous media campaign prior to Congresses’ vote on this question, given the tenor in Congress and the general public.
Pay close attention to how the President and his aides answer some of the hard questions that are sure to be asked by some in the media; this brings to mind another technique the administration employs when faced with a question that cannot be answered, they go off on a tangent and take up time as if they are going to get to the answer, but they never quite give a satisfactory answer to the question, and seldom does the interviewer press the President for a valid answer to the question presented.
One may question why this action is being instigated at this point in time, when there has been ample opportunity to initiate this action in the past, with a strategy that would have been far less intrusive than the action that is being presented by the President.
The electorate needs to pay close attention to the rhetoric that is being used to sell this act of egression, regardless of the verbiage it is an act of war and the administration cannot dress up this action.