U.S. Makes Lackluster Stance In Syria

Whether you support the involvement of the U.S. Government in the Syria crisis or not, it is clear that something needs to be done. Just today it was announced, that the U.S. would be deploying fifty members of U.S. Special Operations Forces into Syria. These Operators will be deployed to the northern region of Syria to train and in some cases, with the approval of Washington, fight alongside Syrian rebel forces. The president also ordered A10 and F15 fighters to near by Turkey.

With these actions, it is discernable that the White House was beginning to feel the pressure of the Syrian conflict. Sending the operators and fighter planes has been the most significant effort by the U.S. to date. The White House has stated that its strategy in Syria has not changed. Is there a strategy? Does not having a strategy, classify as having a strategy? Is this gesture by the U.S. too little, too late? I would argue that it is indeed far too little and far too late.  With Russia’s behavior seemingly to be aiding Assad’s power rather than fighting ISIS, and its suspicious bombing patterns in Syria, the U.S. needs to make a bigger move. Fifty operators are just not enough to put a significant stop to ISIS. The U.S. government needs to come up with a more encompassing plan, one that includes more troops than just a mere fifty operators. ISIS is a global threat, growing larger in numbers and destructive capabilities by the day.

In my opinion these actions, or lack of actions make our President seem weak in the eyes of our enemy. It reinforces the idea that the President has no intention of eliminating ISIS, and is simply riding the clock out.  Lacking an effective plan for eradicating ISIS also demonstrates to our allies that the United States of America is unreliable.

Thanks Obama... Care

Since 2014, as an American citizen, it is required by law under the Affordable Care Act, that you acquire health insurance. If you do not obtain health insurance, you are subjected to a yearly fee added onto your taxes. After the Affordable Care Act was implemented, the fee percentage increases each consecutive year. The act isn’t completely black and white. Many Americans that could benefit from a policy such as this are not eligible to register in the market place. Even a full time college student who makes less than $15,000 a year would not be eligible for insurance under this act.

In a recent article titled “Obama lied, my health plan died…twice!” by Michelle Malkin (a nationally syndicated columnist), describes her own nightmare dealing with the Affordable Care Act and its effect on private health insurance companies. Malkin chronicles the events leading to, two separate instance’s where “action was required” or her Obama care insurance plan would be canceled.  She claims in her article that individual market PPO’s are being evaporated. Malkin also states that private practices are disappearing as doctors relocate into big hospital wagons. She also argues that "only a handful of critics predicted in 2010 that one consequence of Obama Care would be the return of HMOs. But, in retrospect, no one should be surprised."

In my opinion, I agree with Malkins overall assessment, and that the program is flawed. I have dealt with its loop-holes of disqualifying individuals who should be eligible to enroll. I also agree that the PPO’s are being evaporated. Private insurances cannot compete when the market is being subsidized.  Her statement that doctors are leaving private practices for large hospitals is also true. Private practices cannot keep up with the cheaper pay percentages from the insurance companies provided by the open market place, and their practice most often goes under. Maybe a fresh look at the program in the next year can solve this debacle. 

Obama, Putin, Syria

As continuous turmoil rages in the Middle East, the U.S. has welcomed Russian prominence in the effort to relieve Syria. Even among the urgency to clear radicals from Syria, the United States plan of action for dealing with Syria seems to be largely unclear. Now that Russia has a strong and welcomed foot into the door, it could become problematic for U.S. operations.

In an article from the Washington Post, titled, “Obama’s Syria debacle”, the author Charles Krauthammer (a Pulitzer Prize winner), argues that President Obama had been “out maneuvered” by the Russians, claiming the administration should feel humiliated. He also goes on to say that Putin is acting so expeditiously because he sees President Obama as an “open door” with his “no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation” approach. He also argued that the President was blind to the fact that conflict and coercion have not become an old way of the past. Krauthammer contended that the Presidents administration blamed Russia for the late announced airstrike campaign against anti-Assad allies, determining the fault to the “unprofessional behavior of Russia”.

In my opinion, Charles Krauthammer’s article was extremely honest and astute. The U.S. administration was absolutely out maneuvered by Putin. Weeks before the President welcomed Russia into the Syria effort, he contended Russia’s efforts would be a “doomed failure”. Russia already had disdain for the U.S. before the Syrian conflict, after such actions, who could believe that they would be fully accommodating for the U.S? When the Russians launched their airstrike, giving the U.S. a mere 48 hours to clear their efforts, that action gave wind to how things would be forthcoming. I do agree that Putin sees the President as a leader who is slow to intervene, and that he is taking advantage of the time he has left in office.