Cancel 2016.11
Darla
I actually can't believe he said it, though I accept that it is a fact that he did.
Inside The White House & Syria
- Thread starter Cancel 2016.11
- Start date
I actually can't believe he said it, though I accept that it is a fact that he did.
tekkychick
New member
Agree. Very tough situation; I am so glad Pres. Obama is being cautious. And I'm very glad we don't have McCain in the White House!
It's an appalling situation. But would intervening militarily help? probably not. Let's not forget our foray into Afghanistan and how long that lasted and, besides killing bin Laden, how little we really did there...
that is an excellent article, by the way; I had read it before, but thanks for the reminder - it's one of those worth reading a couple times, there is so much useful info in it.
cawacko
Well-known member
Is being cautious the right thing to do? I don't pretend to have answers to this situation and I don't envy having to be in the President's shoes. Here is an article from The Economist that argues we have dithered in our response to Syria making the situation even harder for us now. (I'm not saying the Economist is correct here either but I'm presenting the argument they make)
Dithering over Syria
Horrors in Syria expose wishful thinking at the heart of the president’s foreign policy
RECENT history shows that the 21st century is an age of interdependence. That was what Barack Obama told students in Cairo soon after taking office in 2009, in a speech intended to heal rifts with the Muslim world and start restoring America’s image after the mistakes of the Bush years.
America has learned that problems must be tackled with the help of others, Mr Obama humbly reported. He offered examples of global ties that bind. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon the risks rise for all nations, he said in a nod at Iran. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people can be endangered across an ocean. When innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is “a stain on our collective conscience”. Interdependence, the president suggested after a pause for applause, is what it means to share the modern world.
Few foreign-policy doctrines survive much contact with reality. But four years later, events are conspiring to undermine Mr Obama’s Cairo pieties with unusual precision. An estimated 70,000 Syrians have already been killed in two years of civil conflict with the Assad regime. Enough of the dead are innocents to stir all but the most brutish conscience. America’s response, though, has been a study in minimalism, an approach set from the top, with Mr Obama worrying that the robust intervention urged by many aides and allies might only make things worse.
By way of a legal and moral backstop, Mr Obama has said for some time that the use of chemical weapons in Syria would cross a “red line” and prompt American action. Yet after reports that sarin, a ghastly nerve agent, had been used on civilians, Mr Obama said on April 30th that he would not rush to judgment. Before making decisions about “America’s national security”, in his revealing phrase, the president called for more clarity about how and by whom such weapons had been used. Then, he declared with lawyerly dispassion, “there are some options that we might not otherwise exercise that we would strongly consider.”
It is true that the president faces only bad choices in Syria. But he is partly to blame. While America and its allies have dithered over calls to arm more moderate wings of the opposition or to impose no-fly zones, the most alarming militants have grown in clout, including fighters who have sworn fealty to al-Qaeda. In a cruel echo of his Cairo speech, Mr Obama must now choose between tolerating conscience-staining massacres and intervening at the risk of empowering violent extremists. Completing his misery, cavilling over chemical weapons in Syria places in peril Mr Obama’s credibility when he warns Iran not to pursue nuclear weapons—a blunder that in turn would raise the nuclear stakes for other countries, just as he observed four years ago.
A standard critique of the president’s foreign policy is that he is cautious to a fault, placing more weight on the costs of action than of inaction. There is something to that. The shadow of Iraq, the conflict that Mr Obama scorned as George W. Bush’s “dumb war”, lies across his decision-making, especially when weighing intelligence about weapons of mass destruction. Libya left its mark, too. Though Mr Obama gave military help to Libyan rebels against Muammar Qaddafi, averting threatened massacres, scars were left by the murder of America’s ambassador and three aides, and reports of loose weapons flooding the wider region.
But caution is not the only problem. When pondering the sad gap between present realities and Mr Obama’s plans for the post-Bush era, what comes to mind is how much wishful thinking was involved. In the light of Syria’s horrors, Mr Obama looks guilty of overconfidence, and of arrogantly believing that by being cleverer than Mr Bush he could avoid traps that plagued him.
The 2009 Cairo speech was part of a series of set-piece foreign policy addresses by Mr Obama. A recurring theme was that Mr Bush, by his clumsiness, led America into unnecessary dilemmas. Outlining counter-terrorism plans, Mr Obama condemned the Bush administration’s “false choice” between constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and security, breezily promising to close the prison camp at Guantánamo Bay (a promise as yet unkept) and adhere to the rule of law. Collecting the Nobel peace prize he was weirdly awarded for getting elected (and for not being Mr Bush), Mr Obama even rejected the need to choose between foreign policy realism and idealism. The trick, he told the assembled worthies of Oslo, is to avoid a clash between the narrow pursuit of interests and an endless campaign to impose American values around the world.
Declaring a choice false does not make it so
Events are now exposing Mr Obama’s hubris. It was smart to re-engage with the world. In his own pithy phrase, a lesson of the Bush years was that “not talking does not work”. But it was cocky to assume that smartness would magically be rewarded. Team Obama insists that virtuous circles lurk behind every corner, removing the need for painful trade-offs. A less bossy America will find it easier to promote core moral beliefs, it is argued. By shunning unwise foreign entanglements, Mr Obama will be free to focus on nation-building at home. Exposed to the tough love of a less attentive America, other nations will have to think harder about their security. Used less, America’s power will be the greater, Mr Obama argued in Cairo, quoting Thomas Jefferson.
Alas, it is not in the gift of politicians—even American presidents—to choose their own trade-offs. True, Syria’s horrors are not Mr Obama’s fault. The blame lies with Bashar Assad and the callous intransigence of such outsiders as Vladimir Putin’s Russia. But the slaughter still mocks Mr Obama’s pieties about interdependence, and his glib plans for win-win diplomacy. Balancing American interests and values is hard. Right now, in Syria, he is advancing neither.
http://www.economist.com/news/unite...ose-wishful-thinking-heart-presidents-foreign
tekkychick
New member
I don't know the right thing either, cawacko, but I don't think intervening early would have helped. I could be wrong; and it's too late now to try it. But I think at any point having the US go in militarily wouldn't have worked.
We're giving some humanitarian aid and some medical aid; beyond that, they just have to figure it out themselves.
I imagine we'll end up with the blame no matter what though.
We're giving some humanitarian aid and some medical aid; beyond that, they just have to figure it out themselves.
I imagine we'll end up with the blame no matter what though.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Washington Foolishly Tilts Towards War in Syria
The bitterest fights tend to be civil wars. Today Syria is going through such a brutal bloodletting.
The administration reportedly has decided to provide arms to Syria’s insurgents. It’s a mistake.
This kind of messy conflict is precisely the sort in which Washington should avoid. Despite the end of the Cold War the U.S. armed services have spent much of the last quarter century engaged in combat. At the very moment Washington should be pursuing a policy of peace, policymakers are preparing to join a civil war in which America’s security is not involved, other nations have much more at stake, many of the “good” guys in fact are bad, and there would be no easy exit.
Military action should not be a matter of choice, just another policy option. Americans should have something fundamental at stake before their government calls them to arms.
No such interest exists in Syria.
Intervention against Damascus means war. Some activists imagine that Washington need only wave its hand President Bashar Assad would depart. However, weapons shipments are not going to oust a regime which has survived two years of combat. Intervening ineffectively could cost lives and credibility while ensuring heavier future involvement.
There is no serious security rationale for war. Damascus has not attacked or threatened to attack America or an American ally. America’s nearby friends, Israel and Turkey, are capable of defending themselves.
Another concern is the conflict spilling over Syria’s borders. But this does not warrant U.S. intervention.
Maintaining geopolitical stability rarely approaches a vital interest justifying war.
Moreover, intervening would not yield stability. Washington foolishly attempted to sort out Lebanon’s civil war three decades ago and was forced into an embarrassing retreat. There’s no reason to believe joining the Syrian killfest today would yield a better result.
Another claim is that ousting the Assad dictatorship, allied with Tehran, would weaken Iran. Likely so, but then Iran would have a greater incentive to emphasize ties with Shia-dominated Iraq, which also has been aiding Assad.
Moreover, a chaotic, fragmented, sectarian Syria likely would do more to unsettle Iraq, Israel, and Lebanon, allied or friendly to America, than Iran. Tehran’s divided elite also might close ranks in response to an increased feeling of encirclement.
Advocates of U.S. action point an accusing finger at Iran, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, and Russia for helping Damascus. However, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are providing money and weapons to the rebels. Turkey is offering sanctuary for insurgents. The international nature of the struggle is a good reason for Washington to stay out.
Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles also argue against intervention. Chemical agents are the least effective and most geographically constrained of so-called weapons of mass destruction. Thus, “leakage” is more likely to threaten Syria’s neighbors than America.
Weakening or overthrowing the Assad regime is more likely to release chemical agents to potentially hostile governments or groups. Air strikes would loose chemicals against surrounding civilians. Boots on the ground would mean regime change, leaving Damascus no reason not to use chemical weapons as a last resort defense.
The most pressing concern is humanitarian. But Syria is not a case of genocide committed by an armed government against an unarmed people. There are two forces ready to kill. Defeating one does not mean peace. Rather, it means the other gets to rule, perhaps ruinously.
In both Kosovo and Rwanda the U.S.-backed victors committed atrocities. In Syria reprisals are certain whoever wins. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq offer reasons for optimism—extended blood-letting, interminable involvement, disappointing outcome.
The result in Syria actually could be far worse, because of the rise of Islamic radicalism among insurgents.
These fine folks recently executed a 15-year-old boy for blasphemy in front of his parents.
The final pitch for war is camouflaged as a call for American leadership. However, whether leader or follower, the U.S. would lose by attacking Assad.
Although diplomacy looks forlorn after two years of combat, it remains the best hope. Despite recent gains, Assad’s forces remain unlikely to reassert control over the northern half of the country. The opposition’s divisions and Assad’s outside assistance make a complete rebel victory unlikely. All of the surrounding states have much to lose from continuing war. A second best modus Vivendi might be possible.
Even if diplomacy fails, however, Washington should stay out of the war.
Syria is a tragedy. There is no reason to make it America’s tragedy. President Barack Obama should ask: does he want his administration to be defined by involvement in an unnecessary and unpopular no win war, as was that of his predecessor?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...owards_war_in_syria_118823.html#ixzz2WDzzb1Nt
The bitterest fights tend to be civil wars. Today Syria is going through such a brutal bloodletting.
The administration reportedly has decided to provide arms to Syria’s insurgents. It’s a mistake.
This kind of messy conflict is precisely the sort in which Washington should avoid. Despite the end of the Cold War the U.S. armed services have spent much of the last quarter century engaged in combat. At the very moment Washington should be pursuing a policy of peace, policymakers are preparing to join a civil war in which America’s security is not involved, other nations have much more at stake, many of the “good” guys in fact are bad, and there would be no easy exit.
Military action should not be a matter of choice, just another policy option. Americans should have something fundamental at stake before their government calls them to arms.
No such interest exists in Syria.
Intervention against Damascus means war. Some activists imagine that Washington need only wave its hand President Bashar Assad would depart. However, weapons shipments are not going to oust a regime which has survived two years of combat. Intervening ineffectively could cost lives and credibility while ensuring heavier future involvement.
There is no serious security rationale for war. Damascus has not attacked or threatened to attack America or an American ally. America’s nearby friends, Israel and Turkey, are capable of defending themselves.
Another concern is the conflict spilling over Syria’s borders. But this does not warrant U.S. intervention.
Maintaining geopolitical stability rarely approaches a vital interest justifying war.
Moreover, intervening would not yield stability. Washington foolishly attempted to sort out Lebanon’s civil war three decades ago and was forced into an embarrassing retreat. There’s no reason to believe joining the Syrian killfest today would yield a better result.
Another claim is that ousting the Assad dictatorship, allied with Tehran, would weaken Iran. Likely so, but then Iran would have a greater incentive to emphasize ties with Shia-dominated Iraq, which also has been aiding Assad.
Moreover, a chaotic, fragmented, sectarian Syria likely would do more to unsettle Iraq, Israel, and Lebanon, allied or friendly to America, than Iran. Tehran’s divided elite also might close ranks in response to an increased feeling of encirclement.
Advocates of U.S. action point an accusing finger at Iran, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, and Russia for helping Damascus. However, Qatar and Saudi Arabia are providing money and weapons to the rebels. Turkey is offering sanctuary for insurgents. The international nature of the struggle is a good reason for Washington to stay out.
Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles also argue against intervention. Chemical agents are the least effective and most geographically constrained of so-called weapons of mass destruction. Thus, “leakage” is more likely to threaten Syria’s neighbors than America.
Weakening or overthrowing the Assad regime is more likely to release chemical agents to potentially hostile governments or groups. Air strikes would loose chemicals against surrounding civilians. Boots on the ground would mean regime change, leaving Damascus no reason not to use chemical weapons as a last resort defense.
The most pressing concern is humanitarian. But Syria is not a case of genocide committed by an armed government against an unarmed people. There are two forces ready to kill. Defeating one does not mean peace. Rather, it means the other gets to rule, perhaps ruinously.
In both Kosovo and Rwanda the U.S.-backed victors committed atrocities. In Syria reprisals are certain whoever wins. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq offer reasons for optimism—extended blood-letting, interminable involvement, disappointing outcome.
The result in Syria actually could be far worse, because of the rise of Islamic radicalism among insurgents.
These fine folks recently executed a 15-year-old boy for blasphemy in front of his parents.
The final pitch for war is camouflaged as a call for American leadership. However, whether leader or follower, the U.S. would lose by attacking Assad.
Although diplomacy looks forlorn after two years of combat, it remains the best hope. Despite recent gains, Assad’s forces remain unlikely to reassert control over the northern half of the country. The opposition’s divisions and Assad’s outside assistance make a complete rebel victory unlikely. All of the surrounding states have much to lose from continuing war. A second best modus Vivendi might be possible.
Even if diplomacy fails, however, Washington should stay out of the war.
Syria is a tragedy. There is no reason to make it America’s tragedy. President Barack Obama should ask: does he want his administration to be defined by involvement in an unnecessary and unpopular no win war, as was that of his predecessor?
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...owards_war_in_syria_118823.html#ixzz2WDzzb1Nt