Let us start with the ugly first.
When President Obama conclusively and decisively adjudicated to punishing Assad with a US strike, there were US polls taken to the effect that around 70% of the American public objected to any intervention in Syria.
Let us face reality here about American knowledge of foreign affairs. Many Americans think New Mexico is a country (No need to weep while you read this). In fact, some 50% of high school kids think the same.
Why should anyone believe those Americans surveyed on Syria know where Syria is, what it means to US interests in the region, or how it may affect their pockets in the future if they think their 47th State is a foreign country?
Get my drift.
Americans, in general, are ill prepared to make intelligent decisions on sensitive foreign policy issues to be polled and relied upon in the first place.
Outside the scope of the ill prepared, there is another group of Americans, who speak their minds by commenting on articles to suggest, criticize, provide general viewpoints, or simply reinforce the article’s message.
These engaged Americans possess some knowledge but I will be damned before I admit their knowledge gives me any comfort of their intelligence. It is truly unbelievable how many of the comments one reads, on foreign policy or the Middle East, are as utterly ignorant to match the ignorance of Americans speaking of New Mexico. Although some comments are quite remarkable sometimes, the absolute majority shows so much ignorance on foreign policy.
Truly, I am starting to believe ignorance is a bliss because it breeds passivity in-between election cycles. Educating the public is only necessary when America needs to commit resources or lives to protect its interests. Besides that factor, why should anyone bother to turn the lights on, which is exactly what the Obama Administration did on Syria.
Now a different example dealing with intelligent analysts.
I read an article by Jeffrey Goldberg (Not picking on him, it just happens to be an example still fresh in my mind) in which Mr. Goldberg says the following about why President Obama is skipping Syria to concentrate on Iran.
“Think of it this way: If Barack Obama were today bogged down in Syria in some fashion, it seems extremely unlikely that he would possess the maneuverability, domestically or internationally, to launch strikes in yet another Muslim country.”
I am starting to believe that journalists either lose sight of their own history sometimes or twist matters to reach for the abyss of Illogitopia.
President Clinton bombing campaign in Kosovo bogged him down for 78 days with not one American casualty, and successfully prosecuted a war criminal at The Hague.
Is Mr. Goldberg suggesting that negotiations with Iran will take less than 78 days to conclude a successful cease and desist on nuclear matters? Or does Mr. Goldberg think that bombing a pro-Iranian regime will surely upset the other 20 Muslim countries in the Arab League who face existential threats from Iran?
By putting all Muslims in one basket, Mr. Goldberg fogged the issue enough to justify his weak argument.
If I did not know any better, I would say this is an intelligent journalist delivering a mediocre analysis just to make an appearance at the White House Correspondent’s Ball next year.
Come to think of it, I believe this White House event should be held at the Redskins football stadium.
So many intelligent journalists have turned up wearing an Obama cheerleader outfit forgetting their duty to the public.