President Barack Obama and Russian President Vladmir Putin met Monday and by all accounts, it didn’t go well. While Putin has always been a problem for the U.S., he has become much more of a problem lately. I believe that part of the reason is that Putin clearly respected George Bush, but he does not respect Barack Obama. If you watched any of the video of their joint appearances, the body language of Putin toward Obama was remarkably bad. He demonstrated raw, public distain for Obama.
Following is a link to an article by the Hill:
The body language of Putin was too obvious to ignore:
When Obama spoke, the pool report said Putin mostly starred downward, and made no eye contact with Obama. Syria was the last topic broached by the U.S. president. Putin “sat expressionless during this part of Mr. Obama’s statement,” according to a pool report. “He bit his lip and stared down at the floor.”
Putin agreed that there needs to be a cessation of violence. But he did not agree that the international community should intervene, like they did in Libya. He has a point. I think most Americans are glad Gaddafi is gone, but Libya is a real mess. The media knows this, but there is very little reporting. Following is an article in the New York Times that explains the problem. Did anyone hear any of the other major media outlets, like CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS or FOX NEWS do a current report on Libya after the revolution?
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html
Perhaps, just perhaps, the good people in Libya will prevail and peace and prosperity will fill the air. But my hunch is that ultimate control will go to those with the most guns and the willingness to do whatever it takes to gain power. We should have learned our lesson in Iraq. It was relatively easy to get rid of Saddam Hussein. However, we soon discovered that evil will always try to exploit a power vacuum.
We started a very dangerous trend with the Vietnam War. Regardless of why we went to war, ultimately we decided it wasn’t worth it after all. Actually, I shouldn’t say we. Richard Nixon sure didn’t believe that and neither did Gerald Ford. But the Democrats in congress were determined to end the war, regardless of the consequences. Once Nixon was safely removed from power, Democrats made sure that President Ford could not possibly continue the fight. Then Democrats guaranteed disaster by voting to cut off funds to help South Vietnam defend itself.
They succeeded, we left and the results were awful. In addition, to what happened in South Vietnam, the North Vietnamese supported the Khmer Rouge take-over of Cambodia. When the U.S. packed up and went home, with our tail between our legs, millions of people were slaughtered in Cambodia. Those people involved in the anti-war movement gloried in their great success in ending the war; but while it ended for us, it didn’t end for everyone. Those self-righteous, anti-war protestors seldom consider the terrible price paid by so many others because we left.
George Bush would not withdraw from Iraq until he had done everything possible to enable Iraq to survive as a free country. He felt that leaving before the job was done would have thrown away the sacrifices made by those who fought in Iraq. Having watched our sacrifices in Vietnam thrown away by a Democratic congress, I understand completely.
President Assad is clearly a bad dude. Perhaps we can find a way to get rid of him. But the real question is who or what will take his place. Based on what has happened in Libya and now Egypt, it is hard to be optimistic.
TDM