In President Obama's current campaign to get Congress to approve of his use of military force against the Syrian government on the pretext that they are engaged in chemical warfare, I discern various blocs within the Senate and House of Representatives that have their own peculiar motivations regarding how they would vote. Here's how I see it...
OBAMA & MILITARY ACTION: PRO
Democrats: (1) More conservative, pro-military Democrats who traditionally vote for these types of resolutions and have vested political interests in funding the military-industrial complex, either because their states and districts contain military bases or ports or various companies are there that do contract work for the military.
Democrats: (2) More liberal democrats who are siding with the president because, well, they're Democrats and Obama's a Democrat...were Romney in there as president saying the same thing this group would probably oppose him.
Republicans: (1) War hawks like Senators McCain and Graham, who never saw an opportunity for war they didn't want us to jump into, support Obama on this...while criticizing him for delaying action and limiting it...as well as those GOP members of Congress who, like the Democrats, have military bases/ports and/or contract companies in their states/districts.
Republicans: (2) Establishment leaders who are consistent in supporting the national defense establishment and the military.
OBAMA & MILITARY ACTION: CON
Democrats & Pro-Democrat Independents: Those who are traditionally skeptical about the value of military intervention and would oppose this proposed action regardless who was president.
Republicans: (1) Politicians who would support a Republican president like Bush but will flip-flop just because Obama's in there and they want to oppose him on EVERYTHING.
Republicans: (2) Chiefly within the tea party bloc, these only want military action if it specifically and narrowly is warranted for ONLY the national interests of the United States. This includes those with a libertarian philosophy like Senator Rand.
Republicans: (3) Establishment pro-war politicians who are afraid of tea party opposition in their own party's primary elections.
From Both Parties: (1) Those who think that there isn't enough clear information to warrant military intervention.
From Both Parties: (2) Those who think that we're supporting the wrong side and that the rebels are infiltrated with Al-Qaeda, our true enemy.
*****
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment