01 September 2013

What is Obama up to on Syria?

This is the question asked by a ToI article, with an answer supplied in the lede:

If Congress rejects military action, he retains the high ground of having intended to help. If Congress approves, he will have demonstrated moral and political leadership.
Well, yes, so what: nothing to see here, move along, ladies and gentlemen? Obama comes out smelling like roses and that's it?

Maybe he does, as far as internal US politics go. As for the world, at least the part that is relevant to the issue of Syria's bloodbath: just the opposite. To remind you, the Middle East regimes, as a whole (with very few exceptions) don't understand and in general couldn't care less about the intricacy of democratic politics. The word of the ruler is the only thing that counts. And when the ruler repeatedly doesn't deliver on his promises, when his threats come out to be empty, the only possible response from the locals will be derision and loss of face.

After the prolonged mumbling and stumbling on Egypt, the inaction on Syria will only strengthen the already existing view of US as a powerless and rudderless entity, quite safely discarded by the scheming groups of local population - no matter what exactly their scheming is concerned with.

Not to mention Russia, China, Iran and other folks busily fishing in the local muddy waters.

Too bad.

Update. And more:
The Israeli political and security leadership is privately horrified by President Barack Obama’s 11th-hour turnaround on striking Syria — a decision he took alone, after he had sent his Secretary of State John Kerry to speak out passionately and urgently in favor of military action. It is now fearful that, in the end, domestic politics or global diplomacy will ultimately lead the US to hold its fire altogether.
And this alone could lead to dire consequences, as you can easily imagine...

24 comments:

SnoopyTheGoon said...

I'm replying to you from further down. From the outside of the US view point this whole affair must be very disheartening. But Obama only said what he said because he thought he could do it and it would be a waltz in the park. When guys like Putin, who laugh at the narrative of Obama the light-giver, showed up and said go ahead and make my day it was a different ball game. Then the international community bailed (they have no illusions about Putin and the Iranians) this showed him to be a hollow man with hollow words. A hollow man cannot act on the courage of his convictions for he has none. Therefore he has to run and hide. I really hope the Israelis and their government have taken this to heart, he'll never help them.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Indeed. Here is an example:
http://news.yahoo.com/video/israelis-critical-obama-syria-144030565.html
Disheartening, the whole business, true.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Since I've crawled waaaaaay up on my soap box, let's look at the military angle. Obama has given Putin a very free hand in the area. The IDF is a world class military outfit well deserving it's rep, but even it can be surprised (re: Yom Kippur). It's achilles heel is resupply. The US is Israel only major military resupplier in the world. What if you guys got in a major protracted conflict and Obama decided not resupply or slow walk your supplies even against the wishes of Congress. What would you do? Same scenario, what if Putin declared a mutual exclusion zone in the eastern Med (air and sea) denying transit of military supplies to all combatants (of course only Israel is affected) do you think Obama would break it with military force? Obama has ceded the field and Israel is alone under these and many other possibilities. The American people are pro Israel by a large majority, I am 100% pro Israeli, but if our Congress cannot act and Obama can as he pleases, which is very bad news for you guys.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Well, now, of course, we can always speculate solitary motives and unacknowledged intentions from our disposition towards a political player. All sides do that. However, there really is no evidence for Obama's cravenness. It is a fiction or fear of the right. He has made errors in foreign policy - particularly regarding Israel. But he has articulated a clear philosophy from the start, and he has acted in accordance with it. His caution is - caution. Some more aggressive advocates will always paint that as cowardice. But no evidentiary case can be made that he should have acted militarily where he hasn't, or sooner where he has and that outcomes would have been better. Wherever circumstances have conformed to his vision of national defense and interest - the war on terror - he has acted aggressively and fearlessly.

There may be multiple motives for a choice - going to Congress - there always are. In truth, though, the decision to seek Congressional support is in keeping with Obama's long-expressed intent to turn away from an imperial foreign policy. Of course, there are those who will seek to diminish him for failing to act faster and with more bluster, but as I wrote earlier in the day, the unregulated, imperial use of military power and the bravado of tyrants are not the standard of a free, democratic nation's strength.



As for the counter example of ruly Israeli democracy, the defense calls no witnesses and rests.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Yeah, he sure turned away from "imperial use" when he attacked Libya and enabled the killing of Qaddafi---completely without asking Congress or the UN. Not to mention his current stated intention to reserve "the right" to do what he wants if Congress says no. Y'all who think he's honest would do well to pay attention to what he actually does, in addition to what he says. And says and says and says.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

I prefer that he do nothing. I see no point in killing more civilians because Assad killed civilians and our military definitely will kill civilians. Oops, they'll say, we made a mistake, sorry about that. If he hasn't the guts to attack Tehran (or at least give stated support for the anti-Mullah opposition), and he doesn't, then he should just shut up and go play golf.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Are you serious?

SnoopyTheGoon said...

I agree with much of what the salt red earth said. Obama has been cautious in most foreign actions. Yes, he intervened in Libya and ignored when the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted against a resolution supporting the action, but that is pretty much the exception. Think it is right that the President asks Congress for its support before he bombs a country instead of going ahead and bombing it and then presenting the Congress and the American people with a completed action. After all, we are a democratic republic, still and not an Empire ruled by a Caesar.
There is no support in the US for a war with either Syria or Iran.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

The U.S. did not "attack" Libya. That leaves out a lot of context, doesn't it. Far from "imperial," Obama by many lights was dragged into acting on LIbya. The French led the case for the intervention, and there was a coalition, which the U.S., famously, "led from behind" because it provided the real firepower. It was actually what more international humanitarian interventions - actually international rather than the U.S. as world cop. Clearly, though, that is not going to happen as often as many would like. But Obama was, of course, criticized by much of the right for just that reticent role on Libya too - so to point to Libya now as an example of imperial imposition is a bit contradictory.


I'm not seeking agreement on political philosophy here - just making a case (seriously) that Obama is consistent in his approach to these matters and that there is no record at all (quite the contrary) of his spinelessly backing out on the use of force when he thinks the time is right. Since I agreed that we should not act in Libya alone, or intervene in the Syrian civil war at all, and think the use of chemical weapons cannot go unchecked, I have been pleased by the course he has followed.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

If Obama attacks after the Congress says no just might be the catalyst to impeach him.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Damn Snoop,

I did so much pontificating i almost forgot the music!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=b7TLnRThxL0

SnoopyTheGoon said...

That's true too. However, all things being true, I think that I have succeeded to make up my mind on the subject. Which is the next post, a bit too long, but well, it was worth it.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

We can indeed only speculate on the reasons for the U-turn, without real info to support the speculations, however the advent of the fiery speech by Kerry and the subsequent letdown by Obama surely point to an irregularity, with its explanation glaring us all in the faces.

As for Israeli position: I hope we all understand that the response is not about Assad's fate as such: Israel doesn't know what to do about Assad any more than others. It is Obama's wavering and resulting loss of faith in his promises that shocks the local government.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

You know what I think about the term "honest politician" ;-)

SnoopyTheGoon said...

And that too is a valid argument. However - but check the next post.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

The only question you, David, and A.J.A left unanswered is why, after 120,000 dead and two years of bloodshed, Obama couldn't have asked the Congress for necessary (or not) authorization earlier? There was plenty of time.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Ach, thanks, that was good. What I needed to pick me up this morning.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Possibly, Katie, but I am not into US internal politics here - not at the moment, at least.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Snoopy, the reason Obama did not ask Congress for permission earlier is that it would seem to everyone that Obama was asking for a blank check to do whatever he wanted in Syria. The last time Congress did that was when they passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in 1964, which was then used by LBJ the following year to escalate the Vietnam War into a major American land war that lead to more than a half million American troops in Vietnam by mid-1968. It is the deception of Vietnam along with the more recent deception of Saddam having WMDs in 2003 that is in the background of Congressional and public debate about striking Syria.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Sennacherib, the possibility of another regional war involving Israel being attacked is extremely remote. In case you have not noticed, all of Israel's neighbors are too involved in the current internal disorders to strike Israel.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

(Contiuing the above post). If Israel needs supplies, it will get them, on that you need have no doubts. And if Putin is so stupid and reckless to do anything to hinder traffic in the eastern Med, the Sixth Fleet will quickly send his rusty ships to the bottom.



Israelis and friends of Israel should stop thinking that Obama is some kind of Muslim Brotherhood plant. This is crazy and makes no sense. Just because Faux News says something does not make it true by a long shot. What has Obama done concerning the Middle East, that Bush Jr. (Islam is a religion of peace) did not do, other invading a country based of phoney evidence of WMDs.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

David,
I wouldn't be to sure about this. Sure the USN could easily take care of business IF it's given the orders. As for as resupply, if Israel gets in a slug fest the type of supplies they would need and the quantities they would need could only be brought in by the US if the order is given.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Blank check? 100,000 dead is not exactly a blank. But whatever.

SnoopyTheGoon said...

Mmm... let's wait a bit more and see.