This is purely a cynical view of what he did today, but I think it is a very credible one nonetheless. Obama tried everything possible to avoid intervening in Syria; that is, until his (probably unwise) statement about “Red Lines.” Since then, Assad has called his bluff on several occasions with chemical attacks (this last one has gained lots of attention because of the undeniable evidence and raw video footage), and Obama feels he must do SOMETHING lest his presidency be made a fool of.
So the cynicism goes . . . Obama understands he needs to act, but he realizes that Congress may give him a way out (given the huge lack of public support). So send it to Congress and let them decide. If they vote no, “oh well, I gave it a try.”
That seems to be a very plausible interpretation of what’s going on here.
As an aside, Obama is certainly not seeking Congressional approval out of any sense of oath to the Constitution (which actually DOES require approval). One need only look at his rather large-scale intervention in Libya in 2011. Not once in that conflict did Obama ask Congress to authorize him to send missiles and establish a no-fly zone (both of which were obvious acts of war).
So as notarmed suspects, there is something more going on here with Obama’s punt to Congress. The cynical interpretation may actually be the right one.
If Obama winds up going for the “pinprick” or “shot across the bow” approach that has been leaked to the press, then I completely agree with you. A “shot across the bow,” of course, is INTENDED NOT TO HIT THE ENEMY TARGET. If that’s what ultimately happens here, I would be against it as a waste of time.
To be clear, I think these strikes should serve two purposes: (1) eliminate all known stockpiles of WMDs in Syria, and (2) more importantly, to target Assad himself and his government. That two-pronged attack, I believe, could produce net gains for US interests. And again, I’m not talking about putting ground troops into Syria.
North Korea already has nukes (a consequence of horrible US foreign policy starting in Bush’s second term). But Iran is still seeking them, and there is no denying that launching strikes against Assad will also be a simultaneous attack on the Iranians (Assad at this point is just a puppet of the Iranian govt, given the amount they have invested in seeing Assad victorious). So on a larger strategic scale, I see effective military strikes against Assad as a threat to Iran’s continued march toward acquiring their own nukes.
Obama earlier today sent a draft resolution to Congress authorizing US action against Syria. Here’s the relevant text:
SEC. ___ AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES
(a) Authorization. – The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria in order to –
(1) prevent or deter the use or proliferation (including the transfer to terrorist groups or other state or non-state actors), within, to or from Syria, of any weapons of mass destruction, including chemical or biological weapons or components of or materials used in such weapons; or
(2) protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.
I think this is a good starting point and gives the Commander-in-Chief the necessary legal authority to carry out an effective operation. Given its more liberal application, I believe Subsection (2) will be the part most hotly debated when Congress returns next week. We shall see, but I can’t imagine this proposal won’t be amended in the end.
I predict a small majority in both houses of Congress passes some kind of authorization, mostly resembling Obama’s proposal.
Technically it IS our job to be the World Police and has been since the Carter administration per the new American foreign policy. It wasn’t apparent until the Clinton years with the Balken States intervention (or lack of until last minute). During the 9/11 era, Bush decided to take that new foreign policy idea and altered it into a Wild Wild West Cowboy Sheriff diplomacy, headstrong and whoop ass of any idea that threatened ours.
I read a pretty good article in Time Magazine today and it outlined Obamas’s foreign policy vision pretty accurately; sit back and weigh. Obama hasn’t flexed Americas might because he’s too cautious that too much flexing in places we don’t need to be will result in actions that didn’t need to happen.
As much as I am not an Obama supporter, I think your views of his policy are skewed. Obama has always been about “strengthening” the US into becoming a simple one entity government and foregoing all outside issues. This is his biggest thing and its very apparent in the way you see him deal with worldly/national issues.
Take a look at the rapid pullout of Iraqi and currently Afghanistan. He doesn’t think the US should’ve been there in the first place because it was a “stupid war” or something similar to that.
Look at Arab spring revolutions, he took no stance on that entire situation except give it a pat on the back as a form of “good job” appreciation.
In Egypt, the uprising of the people was a populous thing, not a US-backed uprising (at least to my knowledge). It was when Gaddalfi stood up and determined that he wasn’t going to be removed, that the uprising will be quelled by violenc;e did the US take action.
The Benghazi incident, no actions were taken against a deliberate attack on a lightly defended American post. In post briefings, even He knew he fucked up by not acting. (This angered me most about his foreign policy)
Point I’m making is all the Middle East incidents that have happened during Obamas watch has happened with no fist-pounding retaliation because most of these incidents do not “directly” affect the US. Some of you may argue that it has GREATLY affected US interests in the area and this is true but going along with Obamas’s “sit back and weigh” policy, it hasn’t.
A part of me says we need to step in, squash Assad and continue on with our cowboy ways a la Pres Bush/Pres Obama Drone Strike ideals but the other part sees that it will open doors that America doesn’t want to step through.
We squash Assad’s regime means we also need to kick in NKs front teeth while grabbing Iran by the throat with intentions to choke slam, all while giving Russia and China the 1000yd stare. America taking on multiple fronts is a BAD BAD idea, we already do this by administering aids and policing bullshit that doesn’t need to be policed.
Also, kudos to Clochner for pointing out the fact that the US president requires a 2/3 majority to goto war! The fact that 80% of Americans believe this has to happen before going to war, shows the lack of knowledge Americans on how our constitution ACTUALLY works. The President has executive powers to veto the congressional approval/disapproval of war in times of dire emergency but this has to be one of those “America has been attacked” situations.
Haha, not sure but I think the decision was made Friday afternoon. I flew out of DC that morning and came back this afternoon so I’m just catching up on all the news via the TV Panels.
I just remember 2/3s on house vote, slight majority (51) on senate vote but I could be confusing this with a legislative bill procedure versus declaration of war.
And I stand corrected on my previous post about “congress approving a strike.” In my haste, I just interpreted the snippets on CNN as the action has already happened. It hasn’t and the President is SEEKING approval from congress to declare a strike on Assad.
I guess Congress might call for an emergency meeting to discuss the course of action?
Oh no government shut down… how are we still all alive…smart money says stay out. We don’t win going over there. Just so what… the presadent can not look like a fool for saying we draw the line with chemical weppons… None of these people is a US supporter.
Didn’t Obama say he was going to get us out of more war… didn’t he since getting into office get us into 3 more… now this…He made a lot of fun of bush on his push for the last two wars… Obama stood up saying no more war… I guess that ment after 3 more.
Honestly didn’t know they were still relevant after the US/NATO led strikes during Bosnia. Where’s the Muscles for Brussells when you need him?
A proposed 2014 Action Movie of the Year starring split kick superstar Jean-Claude Van Damm as retired NATO commander Shwartzcouff, is forced into a one-man war, after an evil Russian Puppet Syrian dictator takes his family prisoner and tortures them.
Ya I read that yesterday. I disagree with Bret Stephens about Rand Paul - GOP could use more guys who advocate a more non-interventionist foreign policy. But of course I disagree with Rand and agree with Stephens on the Syria issue lol.
You have to admit, though, Stephens is one hell of a writer. Probably my favorite among the dozens I make an effort to read every week.
Lest any right wingers on here worry about supporting this socialist president’s conquest in Syria, we have the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and National Review supporting intervention as well. With what I’ve read this weekend, I’d like to see these strikes as part of a much broader effort to (finally) go after our number one nemesis in that region: Iran. I’d like to see the US and Israel jointly launch an operation decimating Iran’s nuke program.
That would do some damage, and a world of good. And it would properly reassert US influence in that region.
Then again, we’re dealing with an amateur here in Obama, so one can never hope for competency…
If only world politics were that simple. Oh, and how would you intend to do that when your country has a whopping $16 trillion debt and growing at $2 billion per day?
Who’s talking about simplicity? Certainly not me. I think I’ve said several times that the choices here for the US range from bad to shit.
My country has a debt problem, for sure. But I hardly think that precludes us from defending ourselves against the very real threat that Iran poses. And just to be clear, let’s not forget that the United States has the largest economy in the world. By far.
In other words, the US is sound, structurally, assuming it will be able to scale back its entitlement/welfare state programs (which mathematics dictates that it must).
