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

[Charles Kozierok]

The people going on about winning and losing seem to forget that there is no situation here where Obama could possibly win, unless others choose to cooperate.

Even if he had never made the "red line" comment, his choices were to ignore what is going on there or get involved, and neither would win anything.

Americans have a difficult time accepting that there are situations they cannot "win".

 

[werepossum]

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

I disagree. Obama has lost some face in the region, but given his allowing Iraq to wind down on Bush's timetable, his surging troops in Afghanistan when needed, and his attacking Libya, I think the loss of credibility, while sound in principle, is negligible in practice. Assad on the other hand has agreed to give up his chemical weapons. If he does so, that's a huge advance over anything we could have accomplished with the strikes Obama would have been ordered, AND we're doing it with no new dead civilians. If Assad does not follow through he makes Putin look bad and effectively Obama is right back where he started, probably with more support.

Maybe we also lose some face and respect in Europe, but I'm not convinced that's a bad thing. Remember, Obama started with the position that Assad was the good guy, the "reformer". It's really Europe who wants Assad gone. Yet assuming the rebels win and are dominated by Islamists and terrorists as seems likely, we'd be the ones demonized even if we'd done the strikes - maybe especially if we'd done the strikes. We've already seen the UK neutered on this issue, and the only other significant expeditionary powers are France and Sweden. Anybody really see either of those nations doing the heavy lifting? (Hell, does Sweden even give a rat's ass either way?) If Europe does not get us to do their bidding, perhaps they'll be motivated to build up their own militaries. When a group of nations like Europe looks to us to do their military strikes, is that really respect? Seems to me ain't nobody respecting the cat's paw except the cat.

I'm willing to support Obama if he thinks we still have to strike in the future, but this seems to me to be a win-win scenario both for Obama and for America. At most we lose a little influence with people who mainly hate us, and I'm betting none of them forget Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya while they're laughing at Obama over Syria.

 

[werepossum]

The people going on about winning and losing seem to forget that there is no situation here where Obama could possibly win, unless others choose to cooperate.

Even if he had never made the "red line" comment, his choices were to ignore what is going on there or get involved, and neither would win anything.

Americans have a difficult time accepting that there are situations they cannot "win".

If Assad divests himself of his WMDs, then we HAVE won. Ergo this is not a situation we cannot win.

 

[OverVolt]

We already knew Obama was a wet noodle on foreign policy the day he was elected

It was alot of peoples #1 concern about Obama.

 

[Fern]

The people going on about winning and losing seem to forget that there is no situation here where Obama could possibly win, unless others choose to cooperate.

Even if he had never made the "red line" comment, his choices were to ignore what is going on there or get involved, and neither would win anything.

Americans have a difficult time accepting that there are situations they cannot "win".

Let's ask ourselves with the benefit of hindsight how could Obama have handled this better?

For one thing, I don't believe that his initial 'red line" comment a year ago or so locked him into anything. One of his biggest mistakes was to double down on it and threaten to unilaterally bomb Syria.

If called out on that initial red line comment you've got a lot of good reasons to slow play it:

1. There have been numerous other chem weapon attacks, many of which are claimed to have been down by the rebels. Why should we bomb Assad if the rebels did it or are doing it too?

2. Investigate. There was no need to jump the gun. Let the UN investigate that chem attack and the others. There's enough doubt about the attack that makes an investigation reasonable.

3. The situation on the ground has grown steadily worse for the FSA (and the world) as they are displaced by AQ type groups. A year, or 18 months ago - whenever the red line comment was first made - this wasn't the case. We need to be careful a bombing doesn't tip this into the AQ types favor. (Of course it's not clear that Obama didn't actually want to do that.)

4. Diplomatic: Consult and build consensus. Quiet diplomacy carried out in the background before making bellicose statements could have been all the difference here I think. What are European leaders thinking? Do they have alternate ideas of how to respond to this? What about their public opinion polls?

5. Congress: Same as above. Why start out defiant instead of doing what past President's seem to have done - quietly consult with the leaders in the House and Senate? No, he choose to tell Congress to 'F' itself, claim he needs no consultation or vote. Then flip-flops, then decides to add childishly that he doesn't have to follow their vote. WTH?

Multiple missteps creating/compounding the problem.

Had Obama done 4 and 5 he never would have gotten way out on the 'bombing limb' then had to (embarrassingly) crawl back

And I think there was (at least) one other error - I think the disarm Syria option had been placed on the table well before but Obama, perhaps rightly so, had refused it. I think had he consulted instead of acting unilaterally he wouldn't have been pushed into something he thought a bad idea. And it may be a bad idea. Just about everyone out there who is advertised as some kind of expert on the subject has basically said it's going to take years and be very very difficult and virtually impossible to pull off and verify. Syria has tons of this stuff, which is difficult to destroy, and it's spread around a country in the heat of an ugly civil war.

Heck, chem weapons in Syria weren't on the radar screen until Obama made a big deal about it. We all agree they're a bad thing, but so is killing 100,000 civilians with RPGs, bombs and napalm. With all the confusions in such a civil war, the different rebel factions, some fighting each other, all fighting Assad's soldiers, there would be so much doubt about it I don't think it would have grown into a big headline. Had Obama not pumped it up I think it would have been just another despicable part of a civil war.

I'm not sure there's ever a winning situation when chem weapons are involved, but that's no reason to readily accept amateurishly screwing things up.

Fern

 

[woolfe9998]

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

You still haven't explained why you think Assad will not get rid of the chemicals. They have little if any military value. All he wants is to keep the west out of this conflict. I see very little incentive to not comply. His regime can probably make more somewhere down the line, after the war is over.

 

[Gintaras]

You still haven't explained why you think Assad will not get rid of the chemicals. They have little if any military value. All he wants is to keep the west out of this conflict. I see very little incentive to not comply. His regime can probably make more somewhere down the line, after the war is over.

Some don't want Assad to get rid of chemical weapons....
Assad(Syria) HAS TO BE ATTACKED - it's not Obama's choice, who don't want that either...It's a choice of those, who are pulling strings of a marionette - Obama.
Obama does know that - he does try to refuse to attack Syria - he does know the danger...consequences...etc...etc...but he does know that he might endup like JFK for not listening those, who want that - to attack Syria...

I don't blame Obama for what he's doing...
If Romney was elected, he'd done it in a minute - republicans are better vassals to those, who want Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan....

I don't think, that some want Assad to get rid of any weapons....Either way - some just want to kill more than Assad did....just like in Iraq....

 

[BlueWolf47]

Some don't want Assad to get rid of chemical weapons....
Assad(Syria) HAS TO BE ATTACKED - it's not Obama's choice, who don't want that either...It's a choice of those, who are pulling strings of a marionette - Obama.
Obama does know that - he does try to refuse to attack Syria - he does know the danger...consequences...etc...etc...but he does know that he might endup like JFK for not listening those, who want that - to attack Syria...

I don't blame Obama for what he's doing...
If Romney was elected, he'd done it in a minute - republicans are better vassals to those, who want Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan....

I don't think, that some want Assad to get rid of any weapons....Either way - some just want to kill more than Assad did....just like in Iraq....

It's hard to trust a poster that refuses to use one complete sentence.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Kerry-Obama have mastered the art of carrying a big mouth and getting hit with a hard stick.

The U.S.-Russian agreement, which is supposed to result in the seizure and disposition of Syria’s chemical weapons, is the crowning achievement of President Obama’s and Secretary of State Kerry’s diplomacy. Their achievements are threefold.

First, they have given New York Times op-ed contributor Vladimir Putin everything he wanted and obtained precisely nothing in return. Second, they have smoke screened public attention from the fact that the whole crisis on Syrian chemical weapons was manufactured from Obama’s cavalier comment that created the so-called “red line.” They’re now praying that people forget that the new agreement removes the threat of American use of military force against Assad and replaces it with the prospect of more UN resolutions placing sanctions on Syria. Third, they have left America’s diplomacy in complete shambles to a degree unseen since the Iranians held American embassy personnel hostage in 1979-80.

If American diplomatic incompetence were a bespoke suit, Russian President Putin would be modeling it for the media in the same manner he’s displaying the new agreement on Syria announced on Saturday. It was tailored for him by Obama and Kerry.

Last Tuesday, President Obama planned to address the nation on the urgent need to strike Syria. But his plans had to change radically when, on the weekend before the speech, Putin announced a possible deal on Syrian chemical weapons to ensure they’d be taken over by Russia. But the kicker was that America had to renounce the use of military force on Syria before Putin’s deal would be valid.

Which flummoxed Obama comprehensively and, for a few crucial hours, left Kerry untethered. On Tuesday, just hours before the big speech, Kerry testified before a House committee and said flatly that Obama wouldn’t ask Congress to delay a vote on authorizing a strike on Syria. But, of course, Obama did exactly that in the Tuesday night speech.

On Wednesday, we were treated to the best “rope-a-dope” since Muhammad Ali fought George Foreman in 1974. In a perfectly written New York Times op-ed, Putin wrote that he felt compelled to address the American people directly. He called for America to respect international law, to submit the Syria mess to the UN Security Council. He worried that we could destroy the UN and international law and order. He wrote that he was alarmed that it had become a commonplace for the U.S. to intervene in foreign conflicts by military force. He even took us to task for American exceptionalism.

All of these words had, over the past few years, come out of Obama, even the criticism of American exceptionalism. Putin is a judo expert. His op-ed was a perfect rope-a-dope because he used Obama’s words to create a momentum in Obama that he used against him.

O got played by P

 

[michal1980]

Some don't want Assad to get rid of chemical weapons....
Assad(Syria) HAS TO BE ATTACKED - it's not Obama's choice, who don't want that either...It's a choice of those, who are pulling strings of a marionette - Obama.
Obama does know that - he does try to refuse to attack Syria - he does know the danger...consequences...etc...etc...but he does know that he might endup like JFK for not listening those, who want that - to attack Syria...

I don't blame Obama for what he's doing...
If Romney was elected, he'd done it in a minute - republicans are better vassals to those, who want Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan....

I don't think, that some want Assad to get rid of any weapons....Either way - some just want to kill more than Assad did....just like in Iraq....

To come to your conclusion you have to ignore all of Obamas red lines and war mongering.

But for lib's its easy to just erase parts of what their dear leader say's if it doesn't fit the current talking points.

 

[shadow9d9]

We already knew Obama was a wet noodle on foreign policy the day he was elected

It was alot of peoples #1 concern about Obama.

Diplomacy is for suckers. What we need is a few more occupations! We need to show how macho we are!

 

[shadow9d9]

To come to your conclusion you have to ignore all of Obamas red lines and war mongering.

But for lib's its easy to just erase parts of what their dear leader say's if it doesn't fit the current talking points.

There are no libs in this country.. only in your head if you don't take your meds. Warmongering requires wars... See, our last president, the republican, was a war monger that took us into 2 wars and endless occupations..

 

[palehorse]

There are no libs in this country.. only in your head if you don't take your meds. Warmongering requires wars... See, our last president, the republican, was a war monger that took us into 2 wars and endless occupations..

So, you don't consider yourself a liberal?

 

[shadow9d9]

So, you don't consider yourself a liberal?

1 member of all of Congress is liberal. None of the mainstream news sources are liberal. The Democrats are middle/right.

This is what matters when it comes to reality.

 

[michal1980]

1 member of all of Congress is liberal. None of the mainstream news sources are liberal. The Democrats are middle/right.

This is what matters when it comes to reality.

Whatever lies you have to tell yourself.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You still haven't explained why you think Assad will not get rid of the chemicals. They have little if any military value. All he wants is to keep the west out of this conflict. I see very little incentive to not comply. His regime can probably make more somewhere down the line, after the war is over.

Assad may or may not get rid of all his weapons, but they certainly have "value", at least in a similar fashion to nuclear weapons. In the Cold War, their value was in just having them. To use them in a military sense would mean mutual destruction, and killing your enemy in a war isn't enough. You have to survive. Chemical weapons are the poor mans nukes. It's the fear that Assad may have some that may keep him from being attacked by other nations in the region. Kill a hundred thousand or a million with tanks and bombs and it's not news. Kill a few hundred or a thousand with a chemical weapon and it's a global crisis worthy of war.

 

[dainthomas]

Whatever lies you have to tell yourself.

The "liberals" in the US are more conservative than the conservatives in most other countries. This can't really be disputed.

 

[woolfe9998]

Assad may or may not get rid of all his weapons, but they certainly have "value", at least in a similar fashion to nuclear weapons. In the Cold War, their value was in just having them. To use them in a military sense would mean mutual destruction, and killing your enemy in a war isn't enough. You have to survive. Chemical weapons are the poor mans nukes. It's the fear that Assad may have some that may keep him from being attacked by other nations in the region. Kill a hundred thousand or a million with tanks and bombs and it's not news. Kill a few hundred or a thousand with a chemical weapon and it's a global crisis worthy of war.

Chemical weapons are not much of a deterrent to any country who would consider attacking Syria. Not even 100th the deterrent of nukes. And they certainly won't help him win the civil war. If anything, further use of chemicals is more likely to bring western military intervention which would be disastrous for Assad. And chemicals he manages to hide aren't going to be much deterrent anyway.

Assad's position is threatened right now. He has one objective, and that is to stay in power. He wants the international community to remain neutral in this conflict. It makes very little sense for him to cling to these chemicals if there is even the slightest chance the US and/or France will attack, or even step up supplying arms to the rebels, if he fails to comply. His regime can make more chemicals years from now after the dust settles. Assad can't be trusted ethically, but he does seem like a pragmatist. I could be wrong, but I think his incentive here is to comply.

 

[trenchfoot]

We already knew Obama was a wet noodle on foreign policy the day he was elected

It was alot of peoples #1 concern about Obama.

I want proof; irrefutable proof; a huge steaming pile of non-truthy truth, truth that has not been through the Karl Rove spin machine, so you can convince me otherwise that this "wet noodle" who gave the go-ahead to kill Bin Laden, who let Bush's exit plan out of Iraq proceed without nary a hint of change, who still has us involved in Afghanistan, who unleashed the hordes of UAVs against terrorist targets, who involved us in Libya without having any of our troops KIA'd (that I know of), who have been persistently criticized by Repubs for wanting to get us involved in another middle eastern clusterf**k and who has also been branded by Repubs as a warmonger of all things.......is anything but.

 

[palehorse]

1 member of all of Congress is liberal. None of the mainstream news sources are liberal. The Democrats are middle/right.

This is what matters when it comes to reality.

You didn't answer my question.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If Assad divests himself of his WMDs, then we HAVE won. Ergo this is not a situation we cannot win.

Right, thus the qualifier about it requiring cooperation from others. The simplistic types think that we somehow have the power to fix any problem anywhere in the world just because we are "exceptional" and have a bloated military.

The "liberals" in the US are more conservative than the conservatives in most other countries. This can't really be disputed.

I think you really meant to say "can't be disputed by those who are intelligent and honest." For the hard-right-wingers around here, it's no problem whatsoever.

 

[monovillage]

It's hard to trust a poster that refuses to use one complete sentence.

Meet shadow9d9

There are no libs in this country.. only in your head if you don't take your meds. Warmongering requires wars... See, our last president, the republican, was a war monger that took us into 2 wars and endless occupations..

 

[zinfamous]

Whatever lies you have to tell yourself.

I don't think you really know what conservative or liberal means.

It sounds like you regurgitate talking points and attack words, without any foundational knowledge of the things you say.

rational, thinking people acknowledge that the so-called liberals in the US--those in Congress, and based on the platform of the Democratic party, are significantly right of center.

 

[Incorruptible]

The "liberals" in the US are more conservative than the conservatives in most other countries. This can't really be disputed.

Not sure if serious since many of the liberals are pretty extreme and want bigger government.

 

[OverVolt]

Diplomacy is for suckers. What we need is a few more occupations! We need to show how macho we are!

The worst thing he could have done is what he did, try to bluff and fail.

I'm OK with doing nothing but talking a big game then backing down is not good.