I Agree With Barack Obama

I agree with Barack Obama. Not the President Obama of the last few weeks. The Barack Obama of 2002:

Now let me be clear—I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

There is very little that can be said about Bashar al-Assad that was not even more true of Saddam Hussein. Not only had Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons, he had used them against his own people. He killed an order of magnitude more Iraqi Kurds, civilians including women and children, than Assad has killed Syrians (assuming that it was the Assad regime that used chemical weapons in Syria rather than the rebels).

There are many things we should have learned from our experience with Iraq but, apparently, haven’t. Dictators of Saddam Hussein’s and Assad’s sort cannot be deterred by air power alone. Removing such a dictator requires “boots on the ground”. And it’s darned hard if not impossible to control the aftermath of the removal of such a dictator even with “boots on the ground” and impossible without them.

A futile, short term bombing campaign is not the only possible way of dealing with Bashad al-Assad. The other day Tom Friedman proposed a very different approach:

That’s why I think the best response to the use of poison gas by President Bashar al-Assad is not a cruise missile attack on Assad’s forces, but an increase in the training and arming of the Free Syrian Army — including the antitank and antiaircraft weapons it’s long sought. This has three virtues: 1) Better arming responsible rebels units, and they do exist, can really hurt the Assad regime in a sustained way — that is the whole point of deterrence — without exposing America to global opprobrium for bombing Syria; 2) Better arming the rebels actually enables them to protect themselves more effectively from this regime; 3) Better arming the rebels might increase the influence on the ground of the more moderate opposition groups over the jihadist ones — and eventually may put more pressure on Assad, or his allies, to negotiate a political solution.

By contrast, just limited bombing of Syria from the air makes us look weak at best, even if we hit targets. And if we kill lots of Syrians, it enables Assad to divert attention from the 1,400 he has gassed to death to those we harmed. Also, who knows what else our bombing of Syria could set in motion. (Would Iran decide it must now rush through a nuclear bomb?)

But our response must not stop there.

We need to use every diplomatic tool we have to shame Assad, his wife, Asma, his murderous brother Maher and every member of his cabinet or military whom we can identify as being involved in this gas attack. We need to bring their names before the United Nations Security Council for condemnation. We need to haul them before the International Criminal Court. We need to make them famous. We need to metaphorically put their pictures up in every post office in the world as people wanted for crimes against humanity.

It may be that mobilizing world public opinion against Bashar al-Assad and his regime is beyond the core competencies of the Obama Administration. Is the only thing they themselves believe they’re good at is bombing that no one really believes will have much effect?

31 comments… add one
  • Michael Reynolds Link

    Hold up there. The better answer is to hand out anti-aircraft weapons? Because that won’t bite us in the ass? And then we are to ‘shame’ Assad? Shame him? What?

    Handing out AA weapons requires boots on the ground to monitor their use and hopefully stop their transfer to Al Qaeda units. Cruise missiles are safer for us in just about every way.

  • jan Link

    How are we to contain and/or take control of those chemical weapons (so they don’t fall into other just-as-bad hands) without boots on the ground? It’s somewhat of a fairytale to think all you have to do is lob a few bombs into a misbehaving country and, with no further muss or fuss, have the problem taken care of!

  • michael reynolds Link

    Jan:

    Actually, it works sometimes. You basically change the math for the bad guy. Bad guy thinks, “Hey, chemical weapons would work really well right here. 2 + 2 = 4.”

    Then we come along and add a negative number by blowing various things up. The math then becomes 2 + 2 = 4 – 1 = 3. So in theory the bad guy decides, “Well, I needed a 4, now I’m only getting a 3, so let’s try something else.”

    Dave’s position is that he doesn’t believe our negative number will be big enough to alter the math sufficiently to dis-incentivize Assad. He may be right. I don’t know. I don’t know Assad’s thought process or how useful he thinks chem weapons are.

  • Dave’s position is that he doesn’t believe our negative number will be big enough to alter the math sufficiently to dis-incentivize Assad.

    There’s another issue, too. It’s like the old elephant repellent joke. You can’t determine whether it’s working or not. So Assad stops using chemical weapons. He might have anyway. He might use them again if he feels the need. No way to tell.

    And it’s not just my opinion. I can’t find any informed person who really believes it will work. John McCain isn’t an informed person. I mean somebody who genuinely knows something about Syria, Assad, etc.

  • ... Link

    If the Assad regime falls, as the Obama Administration desires, who will get control of the chemical weapons? Has the Administration even thought of this issue?

  • Red Barchetta Link

    You guys ponder too much. Obama has just informed us HE didn’t set a red line….its the world, or Congress or something. Not his problem. He’s just an innocent bystander, rudely interrupted from his golf game and the vital task of providing health care for all, except when he’s delaying implementation and exempting his political buddies from ObamaCare.

    “You all take care of this war stuff; I boldly and unequivocally vote “present” and let me know how it turns out so I can place blame or take credit.”

  • Andy Link
  • Yeah, that pretty much covers it, Andy. The one thing it leaves out is, I guess, a point where I diverge from pretty much everybody: I think that regime change without “boots on the ground” is immoral, whether it’s in Syria or Libya. Regardless of whether you’re physically on the ground that doesn’t obviate your obligations as “occupying power”.

  • michael reynolds Link

    Red:

    So your position on Syria is that you hate Obama. Got it. Your version of voting “present” because thinking about the actual issue would be too hard.

  • Ben Wolf Link

    I’m of the opinion that American presidents are much more constrained by the foreign policy system than in control of it. When we look back at the past six decades we see administrations which primarily continue the policies of their predecessors, hence Bush’s “War on Terror” was in reality more of the same rather than a transformational break as its proponents claimed. That historical record also tells us Democratic presidents are much more sensitive to charges of weakness and, when directing military actions regarded as ineffective, are very likely to respond by increasing operational intensity.

    Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and to a lesser extent Clinton all followed this pattern; I see no reason to think Obama will behave differently, which if true means there’s a good chance our involvement will escalate. I don’t see a path where this turns out well for us whether in world opinion or enhanced security or regional stability.

  • michael reynolds Link

    Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and to a lesser extent Clinton all followed this pattern; I see no reason to think Obama will behave differently, which if true means there’s a good chance our involvement will escalate.

    Truman avoided escalating in Korea as McNamara wanted. Kennedy bailed out of Cuba after that went bad. Carter bailed on Iran after the debacle there. Clinton bailed out of Somalia.

    I don’t see a path where this turns out well for us whether in world opinion or enhanced security or regional stability.

    This can be true whether we get in or stay out. The very definition of a no-win scenario. We get in and maybe Hezbollah goes after US targets. We stay out and maybe one of Assad’s generals fires chemical weapons into Turkish refugee camps. Remember that we will be as condemned for inaction as action. That’s one of the reasons we are so criticized: unlike every other nation on earth we are blamed whether we do or do not. Comes with the whole superpower thing.

  • Ben Wolf Link

    Michael,

    Truman exceeded the U.N. mandate by attempting to reunify Korea rather than halting at the border and launched a globally aggressive anti-communist/anti-soviet campaign. Kennedy expanded our involvement in Vietnam and pushed the Soviets so far we very nearly had a war on our hands. Carter crafted the doctrine of treating the Middle East as American territory, which is still our guiding policy in the region.

    In all the above instances a Democratic president was taking heat for failure to be sufficiently tough on our enemies. It’s an acknowledged dynamic that Republicans accuse Democrats of being weak on national security while Democrats go to great lengths to neutralize such propaganda.

  • Red Barchetta Link

    Michael

    I’ve seen a lot of debate, sarcasm, rib-poking and so on this site. Its blogsite sport. But Obama’s pivot and shirking his prior stance is just truly pathetic. Going to war is serious business, and this guy’s stance right now is ludicrous and unserious. As I’ve noted before: not a leadership bone in his body.

  • michael reynolds Link

    Ben:
    I think you’re over-reading the history. You could certainly say that “Democratic presidents occasionally overreached,” and be right. But the same would be true of Republican presidents. And in cases of Democrats and Republicans they also sometimes showed restraint.

    Red:
    Here’s what you could do. You could create a macro that just said, “I hate Obama.” And that would cover the entirety of your political opinions. You’re superdestroyer from OTB but with more money. Same thought process: create narrative, fit facts to narrative, dismiss all other evidence.

  • Obama is a weak manager. Presidents almost always are. George W. Bush, for example, resorted to a device that I think is typical of poor top management: pitting your subordinates against one another, last man standing. Clinton wanted to run the entire show himself from devising the policies to manning the clerks’ desks. Classic example of running everything from the top. Reagan was similar to Eisenhower in the sense that he assembled a good team and gave them big picture direction. I think his subordinatets were too able to run rampant. The last really good manager we had as president was Eisenhower.

    I have, well, issues with President Obama’s negotiating style that I’ve mentioned before. I don’t think he negotiates. I think he dictates from a position of overwhelming strength, whether on the international scene or from the standpoint of domestic politics. It’s not typically effective in either venue and it doesn’t prepare the stage for future negotiations. It creates increasing antagonism, as we’ve seen. I think it’s the Illinois model that hurts Obama in this regard.

    But he’s been elected and re-elected. My viewpoint is encourage the good, provide critique as even-handedly as I can.

  • Cstanley Link

    But he’s been elected and re-elected. My viewpoint is encourage the good, provide critique as even-handedly as I can.

    So what is the good, again?

    i’m being snide but also asking seriously. What aspects of his management style are good, in your view?

    I’m increasingly finding it difficult to find any good. I can appreciate some of his nuanced, professorial discussions about the dilemmas and processes I suppose. But his timing in bringing those discussions to the public, and the mismatch between those words and his administrations actions, defies explanation. And the emphasis in word and deed always seems to be covering his ass. His explanations don’t enlighten, they give cover.

  • I think Barack Obama is a decent man who loves his family and is genuinely concerned about the nation’s healthcare, education, and about tolerance. I also think that, like many of our elite, he’s been miseducated and, like nearly all of our presidents, he’s being poorly served by his subordinates.

    He is not precipitous. He is restrained and temperate. He has been able to show great determination when the occasion calls for it.

    I’m skeptical of his instincts about policy, particularly economic policy. I think he’s got people constantly giving bad, self-serving advice and doesn’t really have the background or experience to distinguish between good advice and bad advice. As my wife has said on occasion, he’d’ve made a truly great president in about 15 years.

  • sam Link

    “The last really good manager we had as president was Eisenhower.”

    God knows he was certainly practiced, having been Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. I mean, imagine having to deal with Montgomery, Patton, and de Gaulle.

  • jan Link

    “Then we come along and add a negative number by blowing various things up. The math then becomes 2 + 2 = 4 – 1 = 3. So in theory the bad guy decides, “Well, I needed a 4, now I’m only getting a 3, so let’s try something else.””

    That’s a good math visual, Michael, exemplifying a hypothetical point that the absence of one variable could actually be enough to change a tyrant’s direction. However, the information on the ground is not proof-perfect. The possibility continues to exist that it was the Free Syrian army stealing the chemical weapons from the Assad army, and that it was al Qaeda/jihadist elements within the Free Syrian army who were trying to create a ‘false flag’ event to induce the Obama administration to act.

    I personally think such a scenario makes enough sense, to at least seriously consider, when weighing action versus inaction where there are so many players playing against each other in order to gain control of Syria. Also, if Assad is ousted, the group who has a good shot at this are al Qaeda rebels or the Muslim Brotherhood — the same people who filled the void left by Kadafi when Obama went in there giving another last minute ‘helping hand.’ It’s now chaos in Libya, absolute chaos. Is that a desirable outcome for Syria?

    In fact, photographs circulating around today, published by the NYTs, show the behavior of rebels who will be helped the most by our delayed, “Johnny-come-lately” intervention. To me it makes a pictorial point to stay out of it.

  • Cstanley Link

    Ok. Thanks for the response. i can’t help but note though that your first paragraph is positive only in personal traits that are unrelated to management style (though I do agree with your assessments of those traits), the second paragraph is positive but fairly underwhelming, and the third paragraph is almost entirely negative except for what mught have been.

    Faint praise, no?

    My reason for pointing this out is that I feel genuine concern for the country being led by this administration for 3+ more years. I would like to think that he will grow into the job but if it hasn’t happened by now I’m deeply skeptical. If there is a more optimistic view I sincerely hope to hear it.

  • jan Link

    “As my wife has said on occasion, he’d’ve made a truly great president in about 15 years.”

    That’s an interesting observation from your wife, Dave, which I’ve recently heard from others. In hindsight, some are saying Obama hadn’t matured enough, and came to power too early in his life.

  • PD Shaw Link

    Apparently Senator Durbin disagrees with Obama re Syria, but voted for the authorization to use force because Obama’s heart is in the right place. BFF.

    One cannot underestimate the power of likability in politics.

  • jan Link

    “My reason for pointing this out is that I feel genuine concern for the country being led by this administration for 3+ more years.”

    I think you are one of many people, Cstanley, who feels concern for the next 3 1/2 years ahead of us, with the current leaders in charge of our fate. How would this administration react under an assault from a dirty bomb, for instance? What happens if the Israel is attacked? There are just more questions than answers in trying to figure out what the U.S.’s response would be anymore, to any foreign problem, mishap, attack etc.

    I also personally don’t think Obama had enough experience in his life, in politics, economic management, or foreign policy, to have become POTUS, in the first place. IMO, it was more about his exterior coolness, ethnicity, articulation of ideology which commandeered the position for him — not his overall accomplishments and fit for the job.

  • jan Link

    “One cannot underestimate the power of likability in politics.”

    …so true.

  • steve Link

    “which commandeered the position for him”

    Mostly it was that the alternatives were worse.

    Steve

  • Cstanley Link

    Mostly it was that the alternatives were worse.

    True. Clearly a President Romney would have had us at a diplomatic impasse with Russia, for instance. And he would probably vascillate too much, for we had seen how his positions changed with political winds. He was too beholden to the hawks, Zionists, and Big Oil interests and would have gotten us entangled in he chaotic uprisings in the Middle East.

    Good thing we dodged that bullet!

  • jan Link

    A good read by Michael Yon: Syria outrage is not a strategy.

  • steve Link

    “gotten us entangled in he chaotic uprisings in the Middle East.”

    His advisers were the as Bush’s. The same ones who supported McCain. With Romney in office we would have boots on the ground in Syria right now, and for the next 10 years. On Russia, we would not have had the cooperation we have had with Iran and with Afghanistan. We would likely have bombed Iran already too, since he said there should be no distance between us and Israel.

    Steve

  • CStanley Link

    It would be interesting to retrospectively examine whether campaign rhetoric and cadre of advisors is predictive of future performance. I doubt it, and I’d say the last two presidents have certainly recersed themselves.

    My feeling was that hawks were on the decline no matter who got elected, and I think Romney brought more to the table with regard to negotiating skill (so that he might well have put together a competent State Department.)

  • jan Link

    His advisers were the as Bush’s. The same ones who supported McCain.

    It always leads back to a Bush-bash. Wasn’t George Tenet the CIA Director under Clinton, who then became GWB’s ‘slam dunk’ director having all that great WMD info and advice? Why didn’t we hear blame constantly looping over to Clinton about that, like we do with the endless streams of finger-pointing by Obama and his acolytes to Bush?

    The tirade and passing the buck to older administrations (it’s been over 4 years,people!) gets old, unproductive and even cheap, after awhile Steve.

    I also don’t think you have an accurate enough crystal ball to know what would have happened under a Romney presidency. After all, his foreign policy instincts actually seem more prescient than Obama’s, especially his formerly derided comments regarding the geopolitical ramifications of deferring to Russia too much, his reference to Mali as being another ‘hotspot’ of problems (which it was), nor his immediate assessment of Benghazi as terrorist generated, rather than simply a by-product of an inane video. Even his recommendations about Detroit, undergoing a managed bankruptcy, versus taking a bailout, were more astute than waiting until the weight of fraud and government mismanagement took it’s toll on Detroit, forcing a bankruptcy further down the road.

    Then we have Romney’s warnings about the difficulty of national Obamacare implementation — a claim recently augmented even more by a July 2013 CBS news poll, indicating greater numbers are calling for it’s repeal. And, how about the Longshoreman and Warehouse union saying good-bye to the AFL-CIO this past Labor Day, citing Obamacare as it’s main reason for doing so? And, here in CA, Cedars Sinai Medical Ctr is just one of many hospitals, across the country, opting out of accepting Obamacare. Of course there are all the enactment delays to consider, as well as the entanglement of mounting regulations, and overall discouragement expressed by small business owners, many downsizing and cutting hours back as a way to address the PPACA’s many impositions and inadvertent costs.

    Yeah, but let’s just forget about all that, and instead posit on how bad of a president Romney would have been, tearing down a highly successful businessman’s unrealized presidential qualities and potential in order to rationalize the reality of the incompetent in office today — that’s very convincing.

  • TastyBits Link

    @steve

    With Romney in office we would have boots on the ground in Syria right now, and for the next 10 years.

    The US ain’t putting “boots on the ground” of any new countries, and it don’t matter who is in the Oval Office. The US is tired of military action.

    On Russia, we would not have had the cooperation we have had with Iran and with Afghanistan.

    WTF! Are you shitting me?

    By the way, @jan is correct about Mitt Romney’s assessment of Russia. Any idiot knew that Russia had been becoming more adversarial under Putin’s first term.

    We would likely have bombed Iran already too, since he said there should be no distance between us and Israel.

    The US ain’t gonna bomb Iran, and it don’t matter who is in the Oval Office.

    You should stop listening to the partisan idiots.

Leave a Comment