Certainly president Obama is up against “complex opposition on Syria” seeking Congress’s approval for military intervention (Perspective, 5 September).
Three political constituencies are identified by Tavish Scott – Obama’s own party, the pro-Israel caucus and Republican hawks.
Seemingly the picture is more complicated by taking into account the cross-cutting currents of moral discourses.
How influential will be America’s neo-conservatives and their perception of moral values in foreign policy?
Moreover, how many members may be in thrall to the Christian fundamentalists with their Tea Party faction? Will the Christian majority exert its influence for a “soft power” approach in American foreign policy?
Arguably these moral discourses, but with political clout, will play a significant role in how Congress decides.
Old Chapel Walk
Although my letter (4 September) was about “bombing another Middle East dictator” John Munro (Letters, 5 September) widens the discussion to Islam in the Far East.
He accepts countries in large areas of which sharia law prevails as being democracies because they elect politicians. That may well be the world of the future. This is a big subject which, at its most basic, presents a major problem to world peace.
Certainly the present goals being pursued by our politicians of either building up unattainably high expectations among the world’s disadvantaged on the one hand, or using them as an experimental testing ground for the super-powers’ newest killing gadgetry on the other, can ever bring about the sensible, sustainable peace the world is crying out for.