General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama’s in a Jam on Syria. Military Analysis
He has feeble international support, and he doesnt know what hes trying to accomplish.
President Obama is in a huge jam on Syria, and its not clear how he gets out of it. The problem is twofold. First, he is preparing to take military action against Syria for the sole purpose of enforcing international law. Yet he has very little support from the organizationsor many members of those organizationsthat are charged with enforcing international law. If the point of the intervention is to uphold the civilized worlds long-held norms (in this case, norms against the use of chemical weapons), and if he cant persuade more than a couple other countries to go along, then he doesnt have a very potent case.
This is not a technical-legal question. Its central to the strategy and effectiveness of whatever sort of military action he might decide to launch. In his Aug. 28 PBS interview, Obama said that an attack, if he launched one, needed to send a pretty strong signal that Bashar al-Assads regime had better not do it againi.e., had better not launch any more chemical weapons. And yet if Assad doesnt see the world closing in on him, if he sees the attack as purely an American (or Western) campaign, against which he can mobilize the usual anti-American (or anti-Western) actors, then the signal is going to be pretty weak.
It must have come as a shock when the British Parliament voted down a motion to authorize military action, especially after Prime Minister David Cameron promised Obama that he would join an international coalition to punish Assad for his monstrous acts. Cameron may have thought the motion was a slam dunk. Not since 1782 has a British leader lost a war resolution (the last time was when Parliament decided, against the Kings urgings, to withdraw from the American Colonies). Its unclear whether this defeat reflects Camerons weakness or Britains abdication of a role in global politics. But its clear in retrospect that Obama should have lined up his ducks before letting his top aides all but announce that the cruise missiles were on their way.
<snip>
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/08/obama_s_syria_crisis_he_and_john_kerry_need_a_better_plan_for_dealing_with.html
LuvNewcastle
(16,864 posts)The French will back out, too, when the people return from their vacations and get acclimated to what's going on. In any case, nothing should be done until Congress votes on the matter. If he does this without approval, people will really be screaming for impeachment, and they'll have a right to do so.
cali
(114,904 posts)I still believe that any military action will occur in the very near future. The longer it doesn't happen, the more opposition builds.
LuvNewcastle
(16,864 posts)the GOP take over Congress next year. After that, impeachment hearings will begin. They'll go in for the kill at that point.
More importantly, though, this could be the beginning of a major conflict. My brother, who's all set for retirement from the military, told me yesterday that it looks like he's going to be deployed next year. Lots of brothers, fathers, mothers, children will be caught up in this thing if it explodes. It's ludicrous to think we're going to send a "shot across the bow" and turn around and go home.
cali
(114,904 posts)I don't know that they'll actually get to introducing articles. As far as Congress goes, I can't see military action being good for dems.
I agree that the possible ramifications are dire.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)I'm not the one who brought it up.
LuvNewcastle
(16,864 posts)The Republicans have been dying for a reason to impeach him, and if Obama does this without the approval of Congress, that might be enough for them to start talking about it seriously. If this action in Syria turns into a war or an extended conflict, they just might have the public behind them, too. This is a risky mission, in more ways than one.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)there are lots of reasons to oppose us intervention in Syria, fear of impeachment doesn't even make the list.
LuvNewcastle
(16,864 posts)I just said it was a risk. No, the most important reason is the deaths that could result from it and the possibility of our deeper involvement in Syria.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)redgreenandblue
(2,088 posts)The ship is already sinking. The time to "do something" was two years ago, when the Arab spring was in its infancy.
What could have been done is to take an even-handed approach to the whole situation, putting diplomacy at the forefront and declaring the reduction of human suffering the primary goal, secondary to the political outcomes.
After it was clear that Libya was the model that the West would pursue, China and Russia stonewalled. It all went to shit from there.
Basically, the possibility of a negotiated settlement of the Syrian conflict, with perhaps a form of partitioning of the country, was sacrificed on the altar of "regime change or nothing".
The answer to "what can be done" at this point likely is: Not much.
In order to restore credibility, what the US could have done recently is condemn the violence in Egypt.
cali
(114,904 posts)I think that sums it up pretty neatly.
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)since prehistoric times. Nobody has been successful. Even someone who purportedly could "walk on water" could not do it. So we think we can do better? What are our chances?
joshcryer
(62,287 posts)I've said it so many times. He can even play it perfectly given Putin's lame denial.
"It appears that Russia does not believe chemical weapon use in Syria has crossed a 'red line.' Since I will not attack Syria without a UN resolution, I will simply wait until Russia's moral compass is realized."
Pow. Two birds. Russia gets the blame for anything going forward. The "red line" rhetoric is fulfilled.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)I think Obama should try and maneuver to place Russia and China as the villains on the world stage on the Syria issue. He absolutely should let Congress vote on any attack and either make the GOP the villains or make them share the responsibility of any attack. He will still always have the option of a unilateral attack if he feels the need is great enough to stain his legacy for the historical record.
malaise
(269,254 posts)Obama should consult Jimmy Carter - probably the only sane man in America re international law
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)Libyan bombing alone will not budge Gaddafi, UK officials warn
Source: The Guardian
Almost three months into the campaign of air strikes, Britain and its Nato allies no longer believe bombing alone will end the conflict in Libya, well-placed government officials have told the Guardian.
Instead, they are pinning their hopes on the defection of Muammar Gaddafi's closest aides, or the Libyan leader's agreement to flee the country.
"No one is envisaging a military victory," said one senior official who echoed Tuesday's warnings by Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, head of the navy, that the bombing cannot continue much beyond the summer.
Stanhope, whose comments caused fury in Downing Street, was expressing publicly what many senior defence officials say in private, officials made clear.
Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/14/libyan-bomb...
cali
(114,904 posts)It involved 17 countries and aircraft enforcing a no fly zone.
That is a very different scenario from that the President has proposed. You get that, right?
Junkdrawer
(27,993 posts)These things must be done deelllicately or you hurt the spell....
Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)After weeks of blustering talk, do you think any of those "prime targets" haven't been relocated?
I bet any intelligence or command center the Syrians use has been deserted by now.
He is going to fire millions of dollars worth or hardware that the MIC will make even more replacing at empty buildings so he can save face over his "red line".
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)include who perpetrated the attack.
In any case, that's contrary to what Kerry said yesterday.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)no compunction to link any of your claims to fact.
continue on with your hawkish cries about "taking out governments". It's what you do.