Were I President Obama ...

[xiphias]

If I were President Obama, I'd be in the Oval Office praying that Congress does NOT give him the authority to do anything in Syria. There are no good options, and the bad option with the least chance of blowing up in the President's face is "do nothing." However, "SAY you're going to do nothing" would be disastrous for Obama.

Best possible situation for him is to be able to do nothing and blame it on someone else.

Comments

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

So, do you think he'll learn anything from this debacle? You know, like "study the factions so you know what side you're on, before announcing you'll intervene"? Or "If you want to get into a war, consult the Congressional leadership first?" Or just "listen to your experts"?

You know, for someone who has sold himself to the American people as the Most Brilliant President Who Ever Lived, he sure is cold stone stupid.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Oh, politically, he HAD to say he was going to do SOMETHING.

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

Pretty sure this was the best of all the options they weighed. It's not like the political situation in Syria is an unknown to people in the State Dept.; it's not like Obama decided suddenly on a late Wednesday afternoon to announce sanctions. He's not Tony Stark having a rogue press conference to announce he's Iron Man and also going to single-handedly go over and wreck stuff.

What would you have recommended, given the constraints of global politics? What would have been less stone cold stupid, while simultaneously balancing the demands of foreign relations with Russia, Israel, a divided Congress, and all the rest?

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

What would you have recommended, given the constraints of global politics? What would have been less stone cold stupid, while simultaneously balancing the demands of foreign relations with Russia, Israel, a divided Congress, and all the rest?

Well, to begin with ...

(1) - Start the War Much Earlier - Syria gave us just cause for war during the 2000's, when Syrians allowed their territory to be used as a base for guerilla attacks against America and her regional ally Iraq (for instance, this shipment of suicide vests in 2007). Syria has kept on doing things like this, including under Obama's Administration, so Obama could have gone to war against Assad the moment the Syrian civil war started, and been able to adduce a good casus belli. This would have had the virtue of getting us involved before Al Qaeda basically took over the rebellion.

(2) - Consult Congressional Leadership First - Obama put himself in a situation where he essentially committed himself to a strike before consulting with the Congressional leaders whom Obama would need to vote funds for the war he's starting (and don't mistake it, Obama's assumption that he can limit this to one day of strikes and then just go home is risky: what if Assad decides to strike back?). Obama did not do this: instead he merely declared his intentions while Congress was in recess. (And come on: in the modern age of telecommunications, Obama could if necessary set up a conference call with the key Congressional leaders -- it's less than a dozen people -- he'd need to be on board for his policy.

(3) - Get the Allies on Board - Obama made only the most desultory efforts to get American allies on his side for this action. This, coupled with his public contempt for our allies (especially Britain) bore the predictable fruits -- they didn't support him. Obama seems to believe left-wing propaganda that our allies are merely our puppets: consequently, he slights them; and consequently, they are not there for him when he needs them.

(4) - Formulate a Plan for Victory - Obama's proposed war has one major flaw in it -- he seems to have no plan for actually winning this war. One day of conventional cruise missile strikes against highly-limited targets is not going to knock down the Assad regime. What does he intend to do next. Is he even aware there is a "next," or does he think that Syria will just -- having been summoned out of Chaotic nonexistence by his heroic will for the purposes of this missile strike -- fade back away into the gray fog at the edge of the world, as if he were adventuring in the Young Kingdoms of Michael Moorcock?

Or, if what he really really wants IS a one-off strike ...

(5) - Stop Yammering and DO IT Already - If Obama hadn't insisted on talking on and on and on about his proposed strike for weeks, he actually could have done the Syrians some real damage by hitting some of their high-value military assets. After weeks and weeks of Obama's blathering, however, these assets have been moved, concealed and/or heavily fortified. Since all he was planning was one day of strikes, the diplomatic fallout would have been limited to ineffectual whining by America's enemies (unless, of course, Assad decided to continue the war).

Obama now has the worst of both strategies. His limited strike will be of limited value, and he's given the Syrians weeks to prepare so that it will be even more worthless.

Well done, Lightworker.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Your entire argument is based on the assumption that Obama WANTS to do any of this. Let me reiterate: I think that he DOESN'T want to do any of it, but is required to SAY that he does.

If Congress stops him, he gets what he actually wants.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

"Mwah-hah-hah-hah! My evil plan is fulfilled! Now I look completely ineffectual!"

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

The world must be a very confusing place for you.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

No, not really. How do you believe that Obama making threats against the Syrians, then backing down, is likely to enhance his status? As far as I can see it shows him to be a man not of his word and afraid to act after he's stated that he would act -- what's your subtler and more nuanced scenario, under which he gains from this?

[cos]

Speaking of the State Department, they've been wanting military intervention in Syria for most of this war, and have been trying hard to bring Obama over to that position. Hillary Clinton is a rather enthusiastic interventionist, it turns out. Obama had been resisting but apparently the large chemical weapons attack tipped him over to go with their view. If it hadn't been for Clinton, I suspect we wouldn't be in this position.

[bemused-leftist.livejournal.com]

Sounds like the story of Libya. Hillary said strike early, while the rebels had a good chance and just needed a little help.

[cos]

Doesn't sound like it much at all. In Libya, Obama also thought early intervention was called for, and the reason was that it was a very very different situation than Syria ever was. Libya did not have committed allies like Russia and Iran (yeah, Russia was sort of an ally, but they didn't care that deeply). The Arab League, the UN, and NATO, all wanted it to happen. On the ground, there was a clear and united indigenous opposition, capable of winning; Syria's opposition didn't develop a capacity to win until at least a year into the conflict, by which point it was no longer quite indigenous, and it had never been even remotely unified, early or later. Libya's opposition was already setting up civil administration of some places, and looked like they could form a government. Qadafi had no real support, aside from his own tribe in a few small towns in one small part of the country, and there was little potential for a sectarian war. And above all, there were some very clear-cut straightforward things NATO could do that would save many lives, because the situation was that entire cities had rejected the government and government forces were besieging or attacking those cities from the outside; knock out their armor and their planes, and fighting in those cities would cease. As indeed it did.

[bemused-leftist.livejournal.com]

Depends on which date you're counting as the 'beginning of the war'. But in both cases, Hillary had to throw rocks at Obama to get him moving, and if he had got moving sooner, it might have turned out better.

Sure, Libya looked more like a war worth pushing to victory for the rebels, which the rebels could actually win and govern if they did win. If you're watching Syria closely, do you think Hillary/State wants to push that far in Syria?

[desperance.livejournal.com]

...Isn't that why he took it to Congress in the first place, in expectation of a refusal?

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

I'd say, "hope", not "expectation." In order to make this work, most Republicans have to decide that their desire to "screw over Obama" outweighs their desire to "kill things", and that most Democrats have to decide that their desire to "not do things" outweighs their desire to "follow the leader."

Without the Republicans realizing that Obama WANTS them to vote this down, so that their "screw over Obama" choice would ACTUALLY be "give him enough rope to hang himself."

Plus, he has to make sure that the people who feel that Assad SHOULD be smacked around a bit -- which is pretty close to seven billion people -- still feel that, well, at least he TRIED, and it's not HIS fault that he didn't.

It's a balancing act -- and one that I could be (fine, "probably am") totally totally wrong that he's trying to do.

I'm just saying that it's probably what I'd do in his position.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

But even if he manages to get the Republicans to deny him authorization, thus giving him an out in terms of domestic politics, he'll still have suffered a diminuation of his international status, because he was forced to back down on his threats. This still leaves him behind where he would have been had he not made the empty threats in the first place. "Ooh, I managed to pull back my hand before the gator could take more than one joint of my finger!" is not a victory condition.

[alandd.livejournal.com]

I'm not quite sure that a 2nd term US President _cares_ that much how he's thought of internationally... And, from what you've said above, I'm not sure ANYTHING Obama says or does would have you agreeing with him. Though I am projecting from a very limited data set here... Perhaps you just feel very strongly about staying out of Syria.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

I'm not quite sure that a 2nd term US President _cares_ that much how he's thought of internationally...

He should ... if he's despised internationally, he is crippled in one of his main jobs as President, namely the conduct of foreign policy.

No, I'm perfectly cool with us bombing the crap out of the Syrians. They richly deserve it. What I'm not cool with is Obama's bluffing, because it just makes America look silly.

[bemused-leftist.livejournal.com]

Heh. I'm not sure which side is the briar patch on this one (as in "Please don't throw me in").

But the pattern -- "I tried, but the mean old GOP wouldn't let me!" -- fits a lot of issues.

[ellettra.livejournal.com]

I think you are so so so right.

[rymrytr.livejournal.com]

"Best possible situation for him is to be able to do nothing and blame it on someone else."

I agree. After all, this is high on the list of tenets for any politician. (Sarcasm intended)

I miss Eisenhower... and Patton.

And JFK drawing a line in the sand (ocean), and daring Khrushchev to cross it with his Nuclear Missiles that were headed for Cuba.

And General Curtis LeMay, when running as Vice-President with George Wallace. There was a man with a plan. It was reported that he wrote that a solution to the Vietnam War might be to bomb North Vietnam ''back into the Stone Ages.''

Mankind has been killing each other since Cain and Able; it has been a daily occurrence, without cessation. Be it wars in other lands or gangs in our own cities.

As Bob Dylan asked, back in 1962: "...how many times can a man turn his head
Pretending he just doesn't see?"

All in all, I am most grateful that I don't have to make the decisions.. I can do what has to be done, I just don't want to be in charge.

[vvalkyri.livejournal.com]

Shortly above your post, this one:http://ontd-political.livejournal.com/tag/barack%20obama