U.S military strike in Syria has lowest support than any other intervention in the last 20 years. President Barack Obama's received 36 percent of Americans support for air strikes against "Syrian President Bashar Assad, who the U.S. claims used chemical weapons to kill about 1,400 Syrians, including more than 400 children, according to a Gallup survey released Friday." Obama said he wished for the congress' approval before moving ahead with the intervention, but the congress, the public and the international community have firmly opposed to Obama's idea.The reasons to why the public has opposed to Obama's decision are unclear in the article. "Failing to respond to this breach of this international norm would send a signal to rogue nations, authoritarian regimes and terrorist organizations that they can develop and use weapons of mass destruction and not pay a consequence, and that's not the world that we want to live in." Obama said at the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia. In the past, wars started by Bush administrations earned well over 50 percent support: "George H.W. Bush's Persian Gulf War had 62 percent support in 1991; George W. Bush's war in Afghanistan, launched in the wake of 9/11, earned 82 percent support; and his Iraq War received 59 percent support." It is questionable to see why the public has opposed to Obama's decision.
This article is similar to an announcement including statistics rather than an article. The idea of it is to show that Obama's intervention is mostly opposed by the Americans. The author fails to explain why this happened but goes on with his article to discuss about the interventions of the previous presidents. The author doesn't include reasons to explain even a little about the outcome of such interventions but focused more on Obama's failure. This article reflects a deep opposition of the author towards Obama. The author lacks necessary organization, specifically a conclusion. Overall, this article was a mess.
No comments:
Post a Comment