N.Y Times v. WSJ-G-20 Summit

Both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have heavily covered the conflict in Syria.  Recently, President Obama lobbied for military action in Syria, however; he has received his fair share of naysayers.  The following articles revolve around Mr. Obama’s plans for Syria during the G-20 Summit on Friday.

The NYTimes article, “Obama Falls Short on Wider Backing for Syria Attack,” is written and published by Peter Baker and Steven Lee Myers. President Obama met with several international leaders on September 6th at the G-20 Summit in order to discuss whether or not to attack Syria.  The crisis in Syria has been going on for quite some time now.  It seems as though it has only gotten worse as time has progressed.  The conflict within Syria has risen to new levels within the past year or so, with constant protests, violence, and mass killings.  The blame game is a prevalent matter in Syria.  According to several sources in Syria the fault is put on the Syrian government, Syrian military, Muslim Brotherhood, or the American government (with a central focus on president Obama).  According to the NYTimes article, the United States and other nations are strongly advised not to carry out an attack until permission has been granted from the United Nations (UN).  The article states that Obama’s decision to attack Syria ‘emerged with few supporters, but no consensus.’  The article asserts, “The United Nations must complete its work on assessing the suspected use of chemical weapons in Syria before any further decisions can be made.”

The Wall Street Journal article, “Obama’s Call to Hit Syria Splits World Leaders,” was much like that of the NYTimes article in the sense that both articles revolved heavily around president Obama’s failure to establish a consensus.  Both articles heavily mentioned the fact that Obama was unlucky in his warfare endeavors.  Although, Friday’s meeting was comprised of twenty nations and eleven nations, including the U.S, have signed and agreed to a statement declaring that, “efforts undertaken by the U.S. and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.”  That’s more than half of the meeting; I’d say that Obama was very fortunate in his endeavors.  Some nations have agreed with the central premise, but not all are fully on board with committing military actions themselves.

“Not all of those that did sign endorsed Mr. Obama’s call for a military strike against Syria. While Italy signed, Italian Prime Minister Enrico Letta said he had told Mr. Obama that his country wouldn’t join any military action in Syria.”

The two articles referred to, Russian leader, Vladimir Putin’s perspective on the issue at hand and the American government.  According to the Russian leader, there are eight countries that declined to support Obama’s plan; Russia is one of the countries.  I find it ironic because, this article as well as parts of the NYTimes article make it sound like the most ‘terrifying’ part of this all is when Obama has to go back home and consent with congress.

“Mr. Obama was to return to the U.S. on Friday night to face the challenge of rounding up lawmakers to authorize an armed attack against the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad.”

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s