Barack Obama had painted himself into a corner. If he went forward with a Syria strike Republicans would call him reckless and accuse him of being a Muslim for supporting Al Qaeda, which dominates the rebel faction. If he did not, Republicans would call him a gutless wimp and accuse him of being a Muslim for supporting Assad, who allies with Hezbollah. By statute, he already has the authority to launch a military intervention for up to sixty days without Congressional approval, but in light of the breath of public opinion against intervention, he was wise to dump it back in Congress’ lap.
President Obama abruptly changed course on Saturday and postponed a military strike against the Syrian government in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack so he could seek authorization first from a deeply skeptical Congress.
In one of the riskiest gambles of his presidency, Mr. Obama effectively dared lawmakers to either stand by him or, as he put it, allow President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to get away with murdering children with unconventional weapons. By asking them to take a stand, Mr. Obama tried to break out of the isolation of the last week as he confronted taking action without the support of the United Nations, Congress, the public or Britain, a usually reliable partner in such international operations.
“I’m prepared to give that order,” Mr. Obama said in a hurriedly organized appearance in the Rose Garden as American destroyers armed with Tomahawk missiles waited in the Mediterranean Sea. “But having made my decision as commander in chief based on what I am convinced is our national security interests, I’m also mindful that I’m the president of the world’s oldest constitutional democracy.”…
Inserted from <NY Times>
An UP panel discussed Obama’s move.
Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Now, I have no idea how this will turn out, and must admit to being as surprised as everyone else seems to be. Nobody called this.
Be careful not to use Iraq as a measure of this intervention. Iraq was a Republican war for oil and conquest, part of a Republican plan to conquer eight nations in the Middle East and Africa. The people who brought the intelligence forward were Republican war mongers. Syria is intended to be a limited strike, lasting two days at most, with no boots on the ground. The person who is bringing the intelligence forward is John Kerry, a man with deep ties to the peace movement. I have examined what is available, and I do believe Assad has used chemical weapons.
There can be no doubt that innocent lives will be lost in a US strike. However, if it can degrade Assad’s ability to employ chemical weapons against his people, it may save far more lives than those lost. In addition, it may serve to stop other dictators from using chemical weapons on their people, saving even more lives, while drawing a line and then doing nothing might be a green light to them.
Frankly, I’m not sure which is best, but before we form our individual opinions, we should tale a long, hard look, instead of the usual knee-jerk responses.
21 Responses to “Obama Hedges on Syria”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
According to a Syrian whom I saw being interviewed on the BBC at the weekend, there are 150,000 fighters fighting Assad – and 7,500 fighters for Al Quaeda – and those 7,500 want to kill the 150,000 fighting Assad as well as Assad's troops! That sounds about right for A Q – they hate everyone.
This is an awful situation, so complicated and confused that we are 'damned if we do and damned if we don't' – whatever we do.
Exactly Pat. It's a mess!
I am so glad he decided not to use his "power" to stage an air strike. It would have started a ball rolling which could not be stopped. Let the RepubliCon Congress decide. It is what I had been hoping would happen.
Patty, I do not think it could not or would not stop. The question is whether the good would outweigh the harm.
"…allow President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to get away with murdering children with unconventional weapons"
So it is OK to kill them with "conventional" weapons? We are not being directly threatened. Let the people of the region solve their own regional problems. We should stay the hell out of it.
Jerry, the signatories to the treaty banning chemical weapons also pledged to help enforce it.
Obama's Syria Move Could Be History-Defying
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-s-history-defying-decision-to-seek-congressional-approval-on-syria-143201825.html
Thanks Mama! It breaks precedent going back to Truman, but this shoyld not fall under emergency war powers, because American lives are not immediately at stake.
I think Axelrod got it right with this Tweet:
https://twitter.com/davidaxelrod/status/373871738032910336
Nameless
I agree…. 🙂
You and David sure have that right!
I'd like to say that everything is just rhetoric, all talk. But I fear with a GOP dominated Congress, that will not be the case. Personally, I'd like to see a diplomatic solution, but with Russia pulling Al-Assad's strings, and Iran playing the fiddle, that isn't likely to happen. And then of course, both Russia and China have vetos on the UN Security Council so a diplomatic solution involving the UN is not likely to happen.
Mr Obama has sent an action proposal to the Congress with documentation out-lining the information that he has. A vote will be taken by the Congress to "yea or nay" his proposed action. Of course, they could also amend the proposal. I think this is one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations. But I think this is an astute move politically for Mr Obama because it keeps the GOP dominated Congress in the responsibility loop. How will the Congress vote is another question. Will the GOP blood lust for war show forth or will they appear to obstruct the POTUS? Or will they come back with amendments to his plan?
As I understand, there is no declaration of war within Obama's proposed plan, so any action other than talk, could be taken as an act of aggression and therefore subject the US to international sanction and I am sure that Russia would be only too glad to lead that fight. I really don't trust Mad Vlad Putin.
I think, as far as the Congress is concerned, will obstruction trump profits? The decision that will come from the Congress is likely more about the US and the "what's in it for me" question, than what the Syrian people need and want.
I listened to 4 or 5 segments of Up with Steve Kornacki
A statement by John McCain and Lindsey Graham:
I have no problem with the removal of Al Assad from power. However, it MUST be the Syrian people who decide who they want to govern Syria, not a foreign power.
Steve Dennis of Roll Call made a good point about the budget and the government running out of money in September. If there is a call for a limited strike, how will it be financed? Will the House be more amenable to forego the credit limit show down, or will the White House be willing to be more accommodating on defence spending? There are so many areas that this one foreign relations decision touches upon.
Trying to reach a diplomatic solution with Assad is lige trying to reach one with Republicans. Thed vote in Contress will be interesting: haws and those owned by military contractors on one side, doves and thoose hoping to be bought by military conreactors on the other. I'm guessing Republicans will demand defunding Obamacare and cuts to Medicare and medicais to offset the cost of war.
I watched on NBC News tonight that civilians are standing near targets that would be hit if we moved forward.
People who blow up other people because they disagree with the other people's government policies are called TERRORISTS. Haven't we had enough US terrorism? It is not in our national interest to make more enemies.
I agree, Jerry.
There are plusses and minuses on both sides.
I think it was an astute move on his part, to throw it in the laps of Congress. However, I am opposed to any action by the US. We are damned either way. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan do not appear to be any better off now than they were when we put boots on the ground there.
Edie, Iraq and Afghanistan were failed Republican attenpts to conquor other nations. This is different.
PLEASE!!!!! MAI PIU' GUERRA!!!! PLEASE!!!!
Welcome Cristin! 🙂
I don't blame you for being sick of war.