Senator Nelson and His Syrian Aspirations
Senator
Nelson has had as busy of a week as possible, while focusing primarily on one
issue since the opening of Congress’s new session. Bill Nelson has always been a prominent
advocate of the military and its capabilities stemming from his previous
involvement in the U.S. Army in the 1960s and 1970s. With this in mind, it becomes abundantly
clear why he has spoken in the way he has and placed his support on the side he
has chosen.
Senator
Bill Nelson has been one of President Obama’s staunchest supporters in terms of
military actions against Syria. He has
made several statements to this effect and has been in meetings with the
president throughout the week to discuss political tactics and decisions
concerning where the nation should go next.
With this quote, his viewpoint on the most prominent issue in Congress
recently is seen clearly:
"It is the threat of military force that
has brought Assad to the point of considering international control of his
chemical weapons. What Congress should do is authorize a request, if it
comes to a vote, to back the president's use of limited, short-duration
retaliation aimed at degrading Assad's chemical weapons capability and to deter
him from using any of them again. Authorizing such a strike in Syria may
also be enough to convince Assad he must surrender all his chemical weapons to
international control and sign the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention outlawing
their production, use and stockpiling. To ensure this happens, I believe
a credible threat of American military force must remain on the table."
Senator Nelson is on the Senate
Committee on Armed Services. His
involvement stems directly from his previous statue as a serviceman, and his
support for those troops has not waned throughout any of his previous tenures
in various political positions. He has
been one of the most politically active congressmen this week when the talks
have turned to Syria and his involvement is not a surprise. His views are respected by many in the Senate
and by our president. With his consistent
involvement and history in things related to military and potential, it comes
as no surprise that those in positions of authority have come to him seeking
his opinion on the current issues.
While he has not done much else
outside of helping, discussing, and politicking on Syria, I expect there to be
much more involvement from him on a wider range of issues in the future, both
at home and in Washington. He has shown such
a history of being in touch with his home population through his visits and
actions, that it is not much of a concern with his lack of other involvement
this week.
Sources:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/blogs/political-pulse/os-nelson-dont-back-away-from-threat-of-using-force-against-syria-20130910,0,3745926.post
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bill_nelson/300078
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-congress-vote-to-strike-syria/the-united-states-cant-tempt-assad-with-inaction-in-syria
Sources:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/blogs/political-pulse/os-nelson-dont-back-away-from-threat-of-using-force-against-syria-20130910,0,3745926.post
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/bill_nelson/300078
http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-congress-vote-to-strike-syria/the-united-states-cant-tempt-assad-with-inaction-in-syria
5 comments:
Like many members of Congress, Bill Nelson’s support of military strikes in Syria represent lawmakers that wish to punish the Assad regime for use of chemical weapons. Unlike others, according to the tone of his public statement, it seems Nelson wishes to move forward with the vote on the initial resolution to use military power despite the talks to utilize a diplomatic solution instead of threatening a military solution. It seems Nelson’s background in the military is driving his support of using American weaponry as a blackmail of sorts to influence how Syria moves forward. Diplomacy works best when this fear of attack is removed from the table, so his views do seem to be skewed by his desire to use force in this particular situation. Current developments show that the Syria issue may ultimately be worked out without a military solution, so opinions like Nelson’s, at this point in time, seem to be ignorant, and overwhelmingly aggressive.
It is apparent the Syria crisis has gained Senator Bill Nelson's full attention thus filling his agenda for this past week. Like any elected political official, the interests of our nation, particularly our nation's security, take priority in the daily tasks and events they partake in. However, one might ask has Senator Nelson fulfilled his duty as the American people hoped for when they enacted the 17th Amendment, the direct election of Senators by the people to confront national concerns and interests while being proactive and accessible to home constituents, issues, concerns, and improvements every week. While the Syria crisis deserves our politician's attention, as it has the capacity to alter citizen's lives as well as affect foreign policy in the future, the citizens of this great nation in particular the constituents in which he serves ultimately expect for Senator Bill Nelson to serve his dual responsibilities on a weekly basis, both on the local front and national front.
What if the threat of military action is not enough? If military strikes in Syria are not enough to stop Assad, would Senator Nelson support boots on the ground? What would be his reaction to going to war with Syria since he is such a big supporter of military action?
I have to agree with Oliver, I wonder how the constituents of his state polled on such a hot topic. If it was like most of the other states, it would seem as if his constituents were not in favor. So with that, I wonder if respond to his constituents at all, and if he has addressed to them why he is for military influence or action in Syria? And if he has, how have his polling numbers changed since then?
To follow up on Oliver and Jordans' comments, I wonder to what extent supporting the notion that there be a looming threat of American military intervention is, in and of itself, a tactic directed to garner the support of the American people. We are all obviously at a loss to what the ramifications of military intervention would actually be. That being said, however, I wonder if Nelson, and other's like him, the President included, might use rhetoric that boosts the image of the American military to make the American people feel good about themselves and about the strength of the American people in the context of a global economic crisis--where American people might feel more of a sense that their own shortcomings have to do with the shortcomings and failures of people in other countries. The factors that contribute to these sorts of political calculations offer a lot to explore.
Post a Comment