Obama owned on Syria, folds like a Wet Noodle. Putin & Assad 1- USA 0

[michal1980]

Doppel, I'm talking about those whining about the possible non-military solution and still saying we should have attacked anyway. Are there people on the left doing this? I haven't seen any. It's all coming from the right.

And if Putin and Assad "won" this, I'm still not seeing it. What did they win? What did Obama lose?

Nobody can answer that rationally. Just lots of hysterics about appearances, and no indication of real understanding of the underlying issues.

Assad got away with gassing his people. and has been legitimized as the leader of Syria

 

[shadow9d9]

Assad got away with gassing his people. and has been legitimized as the leader of Syria

Labor camps in NJ, genocide in africa.. Yeah, the world is a crappy place. However, there are no other options since americans and congress don't want it right now.

 

[zinfamous]

The president never should've opened his fucking mouth in the first place. If Syria falls, EVERYBODY loses. Israel loses. Iran loses. Iraq loses. Turkey loses. Lebanon loses. Jordan loses. The West loses.

Nothing good would've come from Al Qaeda taking over.

here's a thought: say the FSA wins this an AQ does take over Syria.

....think about the mid-east, USA and Euro Alliance that would result, possibly even Russia, in a certain need to then remove AQ from power.

Imagine Iran, Lebanon, and the USA being allied together in this kind of "necessary" war.

quite shrewd, really; and not outside the realm of possibility under such circumstances.

 

[dank69]

Anyone know the rules for playing porker? Google is failing me. Everything I found keeps mentioning flour and wet spots, but that can't be right...

 

[Fern]

-snip-
In the case of Syria, the push for war is coming mainly from two places: neocons who have never seen a war they didn't like, especially if they think it will help Israel (even though this probably wouldn't); and the ignorant, locker-room reactionary far right who care more about flag-waving and "looking strong" than doing what makes sense, and who will oppose anything Obama does simply because Obama did it.

What, no credit for Obama for a Syrian war push? That's funny.

The polls I've seen show Showed about equal opposition/support for a Syrian attack. I.e., not much difference between those two. Independents had a higher oppose %.

Not sure how you're laying Obama's Syrian thingy at the feet of Repubs, neocon or otherwise.

Fern

 

[Fern]

This IS a bullet dodged rather than a masterful coup. However, the thing is, the outcome is what will be remembered here. It's all about perception. And on that score, no one but persistent Obama critics, mostly in the US, will continue to bash Obama over this, not in the long run.
-snip-

Disagree, and I think you Obama supporters view this entirely from a US perspective when it's international diplomacy and the desired effects (in this case undesirable effects) are for foreign consumption.

By all accounts I've seen no one in Europe has been impressed by this. Quite the opposite and it's telling that our big allies like the UK and Germany have refused to follow Obama. We (or Obama) have lost their confidence. This only weakens us.

In the Middle East it is no better. Weak, indecisive and flip flopping are no way to gain respect in that region. Our allies are reportedly quite concerned and I must think that Iran is now laughing.

For these nations the mere happenstance that Putin pulled Obama's bacon out of the fire is not the 'plus' his US supporters celebrate it as.

We/Obama has lost a good deal of 'cred' and that's like going to cost us.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
I think this administration has done reasonably well with foreign policy given a series of rather difficult decisions they had to make. In this particular case, they definitely made more than one error in the process leading up to this. However, in the real world outside P&N punditry it's outcome that matters, not process.

So keep on with the Obama bashing. It's won't make a darn bit of difference that people who have hated Obama for years are saying he was incompetent here. Only the outcome of this diplomatic process is going to matter. If it works, it's going to look like the admin's military saber rattling pressured Syria to give up its chemicals without us having fired a shot. The fact that the admin fumbled its way toward this outcome is a historical footnote at best.

- wolf

Cannot agree.

Syria has been a client state of Russia for a long time.

Would we let another country, like Russia, bomb of our client states? Clearly the answer is no. We'd look weak. We wouldn't be 'in charge' the other country would. What would be the point of being a client state of the USA when, say, Russia can come along and bomb you?

The threat to bomb Syria was a threat to Russia's credibility in the region. Syria is Russia's only real foothold in the ME. Heck, Russia even has a military base there. This bombing was a threat to Russia.

Now Putin has turned it all around. He is in charge and Obama is following. Putin has vastly increased his position, and at the expense of Obama's.

Yes, it is a benefit that Obama has been extracted from a mess of his own creation. But the questions is at what cost?

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Cannot agree.

Syria has been a client state of Russia for a long time.

Would we let another country, like Russia, bomb of our client states? Clearly the answer is no. We'd look weak. We wouldn't be 'in charge' the other country would. What would be the point of being a client state of the USA when, say, Russia can come along and bomb you?

The threat to bomb Syria was a threat to Russia's credibility in the region. Syria is Russia's only real foothold in the ME. Heck, Russia even has a military base there. This bombing was a threat to Russia.

Now Putin has turned it all around. He is in charge and Obama is following. Putin has vastly increased his position, and at the expense of Obama's.

Yes, it is a benefit that Obama has been extracted from a mess of his own creation. But the questions is at what cost?

Fern

Russia can, and has let their client states be bombed in the past. Hell, Syria has been bombed by other countries in the past without Russia doing much. Russia is terrified of the US ousting its preferred leader. That's why Russia is doing anything it can to stop it.

The only question here is if Obama's motives really are regime change in Syria instead of chemical weapons. If regime change was his goal, then yes he has been blocked from that. (that very well may have been his goal)

If eliminating chemical weapons there was his goal, this is basically the greatest victory anyone could have gotten and at almost no cost. Who is 'in charge' is just a pissing contest. It is irrelevant from an IR standpoint.

I'm not sure why people obsess so much about who is 'in charge' of a situation or even what that would indicate as to each country's objectives or relative success.

EDIT: Also, calling what Russia has in Syria a 'military base' is an insult to military bases.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
If eliminating chemical weapons there was his goal, this is basically the greatest victory anyone could have gotten and at almost no cost. Who is 'in charge' is just a pissing contest. It is irrelevant from an IR standpoint.

I don't think Obama knew what his goals were, neither did anyone else.

The "very small strike" planned and promoted by Obama certainly had no chance of eliminating chem weapons.

The "who is in charge" contest is far than a pissing contest, particularly in the ME. And I believe it's cost us in Europe too.

Fern

 

[shadow9d9]

Disagree, and I think you Obama supporters view this entirely from a US perspective when it's international diplomacy and the desired effects (in this case undesirable effects) are for foreign consumption.

By all accounts I've seen no one in Europe has been impressed by this. Quite the opposite and it's telling that our big allies like the UK and Germany have refused to follow Obama. We (or Obama) have lost their confidence. This only weakens us.

In the Middle East it is no better. Weak, indecisive and flip flopping are no way to gain respect in that region. Our allies are reportedly quite concerned and I must think that Iran is now laughing.

For these nations the mere happenstance that Putin pulled Obama's bacon out of the fire is not the 'plus' his US supporters celebrate it as.

We/Obama has lost a good deal of 'cred' and that's like going to cost us.

Fern

Having a disagreement with someone else does NOT make them automatically an "obama supporter." Enough with the hackery.

 

[bshole]

Weak, indecisive and flip flopping are no way to gain respect in that region.

Yep, killing people and blowing things up, toppling governments and impoverishing nations.... that is how we gain respect in the region. Everytime we get involved in the Middle East lots of good things happen for US and for them.

I feel sorry for China, they probably get only a 1000th of the respect that we do there. By the way, where does America go to cash it's respect checks?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

The polls I've seen show Showed about equal opposition/support for a Syrian attack. I.e., not much difference between those two. Independents had a higher oppose %.

Again, I was talking about the people who still kept calling for bombing even as this deal was unfolding. They are nearly all on the right.

In the Middle East it is no better. Weak, indecisive and flip flopping are no way to gain respect in that region. Our allies are reportedly quite concerned and I must think that Iran is now laughing.

So deciding to get involved in a war unnecessarily is "strength"?

You think we gained "respect" after what we did in Iraq? Honestly, where do people come up with this stuff?

Once again, glad there is someone sane in the White House rather than the sort of leader people like yourself would prefer.

We/Obama has lost a good deal of 'cred' and that's like going to cost us.

Utter nonsense. We've taken a potential mess and put it in someone else's backyard. The only people who think this is a major negative are the ones who'd criticize Obama if he single-handedly cured cancer.

And I still haven't seen any sort of explanation of how our bombing would have accomplished anything anyway. (Oh right, a bunch of pictures of dead Syrian babies on Al-Jazeera accompanied by howling about American bombs would earn us "respect". Gotcha.)

 

[fskimospy]

I don't think Obama knew what his goals were, neither did anyone else.

The "very small strike" planned and promoted by Obama certainly had no chance of eliminating chem weapons.

The "who is in charge" contest is far than a pissing contest, particularly in the ME. And I believe it's cost us in Europe too.

Fern

The idea that Obama had no goals in this situation is absurd. There's absolutely no way you could ever hope to make such a judgment in even a slightly informed manner. Baseless.

Can you explain to us what dynamics you think exist in the ME that make 'who is in charge' more than a pissing contest and can you tell me where you learned about these dynamics?

 

[Atreus21]

Yeah. What I see in the linked story is:



And note that reference to a "skeptical Congress." Somehow, it's "worthless" to pursue alternatives when Congress isn't going to allow you to attack anyway.

The OP wants it four ways: Obama would have been a power-hungry despot if ordered attacks against Syria without consulting Congress. But Obama was a wimp for consulting Congress. But Obama would be a ruthless dictator if he ignored a Congressional thumbs-down and attacked anyway. But Obama is a worthless leader for pursuing an alternate solution in the face of a Congress that was probably going to give him a thumbs down.

Then Obama shouldn't have brought up the whole red line foolishness. One would think this entire incident was orchestrated precisely to force him to put his money where his mouth is. Which in this case was a no-win situation. Either look like a warmonger or a weakling.

 

[dainthomas]

Then Obama shouldn't have brought up the whole red line foolishness. One would think this entire incident was orchestrated precisely to force him to put his money where his mouth is. Which in this case was a no-win situation. Either look like a warmonger or a weakling.

Yeah, he's such a tool for telling dictators they can't gas their own people. What a typical warmongering liberal.

 

[Fern]

So deciding to get involved in a war unnecessarily is "strength"?

You think we gained "respect" after what we did in Iraq? Honestly, where do people come up with this stuff?

Of course not. Wouldn't that be a strawman as I've never said anything close to that.

No, the point is that to make a threat, back down, be indecisive and have no support from your public or other politicians not only makes you look weak, it means you ARE weak.

Once again, glad there is someone sane in the White House rather than the sort of leader people like yourself would prefer.

I'd prefer one who is experienced, demonstrates strategic thinking and isn't a relentlessly narcissistic. Obama announced his "red line" had been crossed and that he would strike Syria etc. before consulting anyone else because it never occurred to him that everyone wouldn't just fall in line.

Utter nonsense. We've taken a potential mess and put it in someone else's backyard. The only people who think this is a major negative are the ones who'd criticize Obama if he single-handedly cured cancer.

Syria has long been a client state of Russia. I.e, this has long been their mess and it has never bothered them. I.e., Russia doesn't care, never have.

If Syria doesn't disarm what's the worse that Putin will face? A sternly worded letter form Obama or the UN? Unflattering editorials in non-Russian newspapers? Derogatory posts from liberals on the internet?

He/Russia doesn't care; it costs him nothing.

And I still haven't seen any sort of explanation of how our bombing would have accomplished anything anyway. (Oh right, a bunch of pictures of dead Syrian babies on Al-Jazeera accompanied by howling about American bombs would earn us "respect". Gotcha.)

No, I don't see how it have accomplished much of anything beneficial. In fact, I believe there are far more potentially negative outcomes of much greater substance.

I've never supported the bombing, but you have misconstrued my post to pretend the exact opposite.

Fern

 

[soulcougher73]

 

[Atreus21]

Yeah, he's such a tool for telling dictators they can't gas their own people. What a typical warmongering liberal.

:shrug. If you're going to say there's a red line, you'd better be prepared to put up or shut up when you're called on it.

 

[Paul98]

:shrug. If you're going to say there's a red-line, you'd better be prepared to put up or shut up when you're called on it.

So you think the USA should have attacked Syria?

 

[Fern]

The idea that Obama had no goals in this situation is absurd. There's absolutely no way you could ever hope to make such a judgment in even a slightly informed manner. Baseless.

That's funny, Obama has time and again spoke of his reasons/goals for bombing Syria. So yeah, I can make a judgement because I've heard him try to explain it and he's been nothing if not inconsistent.

Can you explain to us what dynamics you think exist in the ME that make 'who is in charge' more than a pissing contest and can you tell me where you learned about these dynamics?

Yeah: Power, strength etc.

Been watching the ME on-n-off for about 40 yrs. I've been to Muslim/Arab countries. I've worked with Syrians etc. My position on their attitude is not unique, not even close.

Fern

 

[Atreus21]

So you think the USA should have attacked Syria?

I'm not really sure what we should've done. But what I do know is that Obama drew a line in the sand, and Syria stepped across it. Result: No good options. Attack and (rightly or wrongly) be called a war-mongerer, or withdraw and be called a weakling who makes empty threats.

Lesson to be learned: Consider the consequences of your bluff being called before drawing lines in the sand.

 

[Paul98]

I'm not really sure what we should've done. But what I do know is that Obama drew a line in the sand, and Syria stepped across it. Result: No good options. Attack and (rightly or wrongly) be called a war-mongerer, or withdraw and become a weakling whose threats are just words.

You need to look at the reasons he withdrew his attack threat for now. He was going full steam ahead championing an attack on Syria even though the public was against it. He would have continued down that road and most likely attacked had Syria not agreed to dispose of it's chemical weapons. Syria wouldn't have done this without that pressure.

Now if this happens again or Syria doesn't do what it says it's going to do we will still have the option to strike. If that happens we will most likely have a lot more support due to the repeat offense and deceiving practice. We need to get the USA away from being the world police.

 

[dainthomas]

:shrug. If you're going to say there's a red line, you'd better be prepared to put up or shut up when you're called on it.

He tried to put up, but apparently wasn't prepared for Congress to fold like a wet noodle. He must have assumed the American people still believed gassing kids is a not-cool thing to do. Well, he knows better now.

 

[thraashman]

I'm not really sure what we should've done. But what I do know is that Obama drew a line in the sand, and Syria stepped across it. Result: No good options. Attack and (rightly or wrongly) be called a war-mongerer, or withdraw and be called a weakling who makes empty threats.

Lesson to be learned: Consider the consequences of your bluff being called before drawing lines in the sand.

Well the line in the sand is drawn by the CWC. And if those countries that have signed on don't enforce it, then what's the point? Unfortunately when given an opportunity to put their foot down, the international community balked. And the Obama made the call the rest of the world should have by making ready to enforce the ban by force. Even if it was by accident, the diplomatic solution reached is about the only ideal one that could have been. The only people who care who "won" and "Putin made Obama look bad" are the political hacks who'd be happy to see millions of people die if it made Obama look bad.

So if you're sitting here with the "Putin schooled Obama" attitude, you are a bad person because you're actually mocking the only possible non-violent solution. Basically I'm calling the OP an asshole and those who agree with him one too.

 

[Doppel]

Doppel, I'm talking about those whining about the possible non-military solution and still saying we should have attacked anyway. Are there people on the left doing this? I haven't seen any. It's all coming from the right.

The only one I've really noted is McCain, but likely there are others.

And if Putin and Assad "won" this, I'm still not seeing it. What did they win? What did Obama lose?

So far Assad has "won" by using weapons, suffering no attack, and not relinquishing them. That may change; he may relinquish them, though I believe the odds are not in that outcome's favor. Obama has "lost" by his red line being ignored and no assurance yet chem weapons won't be reused.