Steve Coll’s in-depth factual look into the historical, political and foreign sway on the World stage of ExxonMobil starting from United States , Indonesia, Nigeria,Russia, Middle East and Venezuela. The “ExxonMobil way” is the iron clad bible of modern day corporate culture. I was fascinated with the intricate network and policies that ExxonMobil corporation ensues of free market capitalism and big oil. Bewilderment is the only human expression that quantifies the turning pages of this book.
My favorite line in the book: “I’m not a U.S. company,” Raymond says, “and I don’t make decisions based on what’s good for the U.S.”- Former CEO Lee Raymond when asked on building more U.S. refineries as a form of corporate patriotism to offset future domestic gasoline shortages and international geopolitical crisis
Syria has been the hot topic in the media and world political stage for the pass few weeks because of the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government on its people resulting in 1400 deaths according to US estimate last week in Damascus, Syria. There is no concrete evidence linking Assad’s to the authorization of the chemical weapons . President Obama feels cornered with the fickle drama that is resonating on his table because he previously stated that the use of chemical weapons on its people would be the red line that would push United states into engagement with Syria .Obama has not made any concrete decision on any action United States on Syria but has seriously considered using missile attacks on key strategic and military Syrian outposts in a limited role rather than use full pledged military. The Obama administration has backed out in supporting regime change in Syria and focused on punishing the government for its alleged chemical weapons use. France and Italy have notably supported intervening in Syria. The British Parliament recently voted against the invasion of Syria by 13 votes because of the retribution from the disastrous Iraq war. Obama has been speaking with Congress and key world leaders to present the case of Syria’s intervention. Russia, China and Iran have openly vowed against with any military attack on Syria.
President Obama…..Syria on his mind…It is either going to make him or break himBritish PM Cameron pleading his case on intervening in Syrian crisis at the British Parliament.Vladmir Putin, notably apprehensive about Syria’s intervention because of its inconsequential regime change that will surge a terrorist state.United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moonHassan Rouhani….Russian co defendants on preventing Syrian intervention but openly condemning the use of chemical weapons but pushes for calculated assessment on Syria by the United Nations security council rather than rapid military use.Arab League has condemned Syria for its for its used of chemical weapons but is not in support of military intervention.
The United nations have sent inspectors to make a report of the alleged chemical weapons’ use and report back to the Sectary General Ban Ki-moon. The World especially United states is awaiting the briefing from the UN inspectors to make any decision. The Arab League especially Saudi Arabia and UAE has condemned Syria for its chemical use and revoked their membership but it is treading quietly to take any action especially militarily . There are certain factors and consequences that surrounding a unilateral involvement of United states or the world’s involvement or no intervention at all….It is as follows:
If the use of missile attacks from the United States warships are employed from nearby Turkey, Syrians will surely embark on a military response and probably receive help from Iran, Russia and China. If the tide of the attacks are favoring the Syrians, America might be forced to use the ground military which will probably lead to another war which will strain the already weak US-Russia relations. Saudi Arabia, UAE and Qatar have been supporting the Sunni filled rebel groups in Syria but are opposed to military use.
United States missile attacks; if successful will lead to the unfortunate insurgence of Al-Qaeda affiliated rebel groups in Syria that would reestablish a Taliban government which will be detrimental to Syrian’s Christians and Israel and make a terrorist haven. The tide will increase terrorist activities in Middle East and push for an unsafe world.
The use of missile attacks might hit targets that are not military outposts due to faulty intelligence and raises humanitarian concerns.
If Obama takes no action, Obama will called a “weak leader” in United States and makes the superpower seem trounced by the Middle East. Iran has previously stated that Syrian military intervention would be the marker that push Iran to outright opposition to United States even if it cost the use of Iranian military to test America.
If the Syrian crisis is mismanaged, it would strain Russians relations, creates more distance with the new Iranian regime( New president elect Hassan Rouhani) which is deemed relatively “moderate” compared to the prior Mahmoud Ahmadinejad term . Iran has pointed out the any military action will decimate Middle eastern relations with the Western powers and eventually destroy Israel consequentially.
The disastrous Iraq war has put a bitter taste in the mouth of Middle easterners and the volatile region will be more unstable if the Syrian crisis is not handled properly. The superpowers are also apprehensive about starting another war that might mimic the Iraq war debacle.
The Libyan involvement was highly supported by the Coalition of willing: United States, Britain, France, Italy and the Arab league, The Syrian crisis is much more complicated and volatile that the prior coalition of willing are treading extremely lightly.
The impending overthrown government of Assad will not solve the issues with Syria and might cost United States time and money that would put the already weak economy in more dire circumstances.
If Obama takes this action with Congress’s approval, there might be political retributions especially if it is unsuccessful and mismanaged.
There is a certain level of hypocrisy surrounding Syrian intervention because United states supported Saddam Hussein’s attack on Iran that led to eventual use of chemical weapons on Iranians during the 80’s invasion( remained quiet) but are quick to invoke retribution on Syria’s alleged chemical attacks since it might affect the state of Israel.
War mongers in the Pentagon , State’s department, military and Intelligence community might overtly influence Obama to use military actions that might deter any progress in Syria.
Taking all this into account, Obama is faced with the most challenging foreign policy dilemma that either set him out as a leader or peacemaker, or war harbinger or weak. In my opinion, Obama is a thoughtful president although cornered by few options will eventually come with appropriate measures in handling the Syrian crisis unlike his predecessor Bush. Obama is not trying to set a stage for World War III that will engulf the Middle East. I also believe that a world summit should be setup that invites Assad or his representatives before a neutral United nations to negotiate a peaceful and calculated approach before taking any key military approach. Obama needs the support from some key world leaders and Arab league to undertake any action in Syria in order to a make it successful similar to Libya’s overthrowing Gadaffi.
The passing weeks have covered the selection of President Obama’s top cabinet in the media. Critics have characterized his picks as “over-reaching”, “lame”, “aggressive” or “irresponsible”. Critics have also attacked his picks with lack of racial and gender diversity. Are Obama’s picks really that bad….Lets take a look
Secretary of State: Senator John Kerry
President Obama and Senator KerrySusan Rice
The selection of Kerry was not too surprising to the media because of speculation that arose within days of President Obama’s reelection. Susan Rice was actually a top choice for the position (Ambassador to UN) was finally removed because of the highly criticized mismanagement of the Benghazi terror attack on the US embassy in Libya spearheaded by Senator John McCain . The transition from Hilary Clinton to John Kerry is sort of letdown even by own standards. The name “Clinton” resonates well with foreign diplomatic relations. Former president Bill Clinton has been successful in making headway to building relationships between countries. The media covered Hilary Clinton numerous trips to counties trying to repair broken bridges caused by the infamous former President Bush Foreign relations team. Lets face it, America was not held on high esteem due to the Iraq war, greed and bad foreign relations. Clinton had to make due haste in connecting America to the disappointed countries. President Kerry in my opinion comes off as a little lay-back which is not a good attribute to the Secretary of State position. Lets not forget during the Bush vs. Kerry election in 2003 where Kerry was too layback and lost the election. Bush was successful at antagonizing and creating a nickname for Kerry-flip flop. Kerry had all the right points to finish Bush but ended up being on the defensive side trying to establish his credibility. Kerry had to continually defend his stance on Vietnam war where he was clearly against it after volunteering and fighting in the war; funny enough Bush did not even serve in Vietnam and was rumored to have used his families’ political connections to avoid the war. This should have been a counter punch to Bush stating…..”I might I have been against Vietnam War but I fought, What about you George Bush”..Case and point would have clearly diminished Bush.
On the other hand, lets face it Kerry is a prestigious member of the Senate with years in Foreign intelligence and relations. Kerry is known to a believer of international cooperation in the face of terrorism and foreign relations. He also believed in bipartisanship on foreign policy and national security. Kerry is a big fan of Obama’s foreign policies and even spearheaded increased relations with Russia. Kerry is also a believer in the doctrine of diplomacy before war and war is the last resort in foreign policy but he is still an advoate for military action when neccessary. He is also in support of reduction of nuclear arms across the world and conflicts should be settled with conversation rather than military actions. His position does not deter him for military action but he wanted a more constructive engagement.
In my assessment, is he Clinton? No.but he beleives in the same doctrine as the Clinton’s did…Is he good for the position? I believe so because of his vast experience in Foreign policy.
Secretary of Defense: Former Senator Chuck Hagel
Chuck Hagel, President Obama and CIA new chief John Brennan
This pick was far the most controversial. Chuck Hagel has been known to have reservation against the State of Isreal and proponent of relaxed restriction on Iran sanctions. Chuck Hagel statements have not received well by some members of the Senate from both parties especially the republicans. Republicans state that Hagel is callous and could let Iran gain nuclear power. Hagel character has been the center-point of criticism from the Republican party. Hagel has defended the value of engagement for furthering U.S. interests, and supported engagement with Iran during his time in the Senate.
Regardless, Hagel has been a strong proponent of stronger foreign ties and even building bridges with acclaimed enemies of the US. He served in the Foreign relations committee just as Kerry did during his time in Senate. Hagel could prove to be an important proponent of reduced military spending at the Pentagon and is keen in finding wasteful spending in the military His stance against the military surge in Iraq and Afghanistan by Obama might help reduce military coverage in both countries. Hagel faces a tougher confirmation by the Senate than Kerry but He will still be appointed. He calls to careful military action against enemies rather than a spontaneous reaction. In retrospect, Isreal are sometimes over-shielded in their engagement with Palestine. Their approach in dealing with Palestine is sometimes frowned upon by countries because of their often unprovoked military action towards them. Hagel is somewhat accurate in making Isreal more accountable for his irate decisions.
In my opinion….I support the selction of HAGEL
Both candidates show Obama as definitively more aggressive despite criticism, pragmatic rather rather than overreaching.Surrounding himself with Hagel and Kerry could bring a less aggressive approach in military action than his previous term, more international approach on national security , avoidance of unnecessary conflicts and breaking down the barrier of Congressional politically driven tactics. His selection shows him picking more of his friends than a diverse and political agenda driven cabinet. This is his last term and he is looking for the best, experienced friends that could solidify his legacy. This term is based on building America in all aspects not playing politics(e.g remember trying to convince fellow democrats to supports extended Bush tax cuts and his continual agenda on trying to convince republicans to support Obamacare) . He is taking more of hardline and stronger hand in leading America out of disparity as evidenced in his stance on the eventful fiscal cliff that painted Republicans as stone-wallers of economic decisions and proponents of playing politics. He also appointed Jack Lew for Treseaury Secretary who was formerly his Chief of Staff. It is highly possible that some other cabinet seats would be filled by more diverse individuals with good credentials.
💡Cosmic Frame>>>∞ and beyond💡 