I’ve just published a foreign policy-related post at Outside the Beltway:
Dan Drezner explains the president’s strategy with respect to Syria. If he’s right, it’s about as cynical as you can get.
I’ve just published a foreign policy-related post at Outside the Beltway:
Dan Drezner explains the president’s strategy with respect to Syria. If he’s right, it’s about as cynical as you can get.
Here are two back to back commentaries, by Larry Johnson of NoQuarter Blog, giving a heated analysis of Obama’s leadership in this Syria maneuver. Then you have zerohedge weighing in with this possibility: Obama starting war with Syria just to distract us from all the scandals. It’s a compelling twist to the reasoning behind Obama suddenly entering the Syria fray, reminding me of Clinton’s own belated decision to militarily engage in Kosovo, igniting wag the dog’ insinuations, inferring Kosovo being a contrived distraction away from Clinton’s 2nd term presidential problems. .
As for me, I think anything is possible with this administration. From what I’ve already observed with Obama and his inner WH circle is that, first Obama must be protected at all costs, no matter who is sacrificed to insure this is done. Second, Obama’s actions seem to rely on either of these two objectives; the first being implementing his ideology over pragmatic, good-for-the-country outcomes. The second, is to leave no Obama fingerprints on any failures or missteps, while allotting maximum exposure and kudos to him on what is seen as popular or successfully accomplished on his watch (i.e. OBL capture/kill).
Basically, the buck never stops at Obama’s desk. It’s mainly keeping the presidential reflection in the mirror attractive and free of blame or accountability.
I’m skeptical of the underlying assumption: that there is a coherent strategy. I think that, as usual, U. S. policy is like a drunk, lurching from lamppost to lamppost. Other than that U. S. policy WRT Syria isn’t a policy at all but wishes.
@jan
People who have never sat behind the desk in the Oval Office have the luxury of dreaming up any sort of scenario. Senator Obama conjured up all sorts of scenarios about intelligence gathering and terrorist activities. President Obama got a dose of reality, and he has kept or enhance any program Senator Obama denounced.
JFK, LBJ, Nixon were in Vietnam for political reasons. Reagan invaded Grenada for political reasons. President Bush the Elder got the US into the first Gulf War for political reasons. President Clinton went into Kosovo for political reasons. President Bush the Younger lied about intelligence for political reasons. And now, President is getting into Syria for political reasons.
This is utter and complete tripe. No modern President is going to risk US military lives for political reasons. Did the Clintons also have Vince Foster knocked-off to cover a scandal?
Putting forth this nonsense is trafficking in conspiracy theories. If it is possible that President Obama is going into Syria for political reasons, it is also possible that President Obama is a space alien, but I have yet to see anybody throwing that out as a possibility.
No modern President is going to risk US military lives for political reasons.
This presumption of your’s, Tasty, I disagree with. I think ‘politics’ plays a far larger role in many of our national decisions than one realizes. There is nothing conspiratorial about that notion, either, as so much that is seen or told to us is far different than what is covered up and not talked about.
My husband was in the military and found that out, first hand.
I also think every president, no matter what his party affiliation has been, has had to play the game of less-than-high-minded politics within his term of office — be it Reagan, Bush, Sr/Jr, Clinton, Obama, as well as earlier on Presidents.
@jan
I was in the military, also – USMC infantry, and I was in the first Gulf War and Somalia. You can put away the military card.
Actually, the presumption is yours. You have as much evidence that the President is a space alien as evidence he is starting military action for political reasons. You can pull any “theory” out of your a$$, but without proof, it is nothing more than a “theory” you pulled out of your a$$.
I was being nice when I called it a conspiracy theory.
Tasty
I wasn’t using the military as any kind of special card. It was a conversational tidbit — something that signaled a huge discrepancy, for my husband, between action on the ground and what was being reported in the news.
Regarding evidence — there is none on any side as to why we are going into Syria at this late date — especially with the rebels now supposedly more affiliated with Al Qaeda than earlier in the conflict. I can point out Clinton dissing Obama’s Syrian policy only last week. Is it coincidence that magically we are now getting on board with openly supplying weapons to people who may be our enemies? I don’t know. It’s all conjecture. However, I don’t see anything in this administration’s foreign policy patterns that assures me there is some kind of method or long term strategy being implemented. So, for me, throwing out a political angle, using an engagement in Syria as a form of distraction from domestic entanglements, is as good as any speculation out there.
We simply see things differently, Tasty.
@jan
I rarely comment on President Obama specifically. At OTB, I comment on foreign affairs, and I do not want it to break down into a partisan food fight. I will layout a few of my thoughts.
The President does not have a coherent foreign policy, but he does believe that what you say and what you do should be the same. He believes the US should be loved not feared, and if the US sets a good example, the rest of the world will follow. Finally, he is reluctant to start anything he can be blamed over.
President Obama was dragged into Libya. He was doing everything he could to stay out. He was not “leading from behind”. He only went in once it looked like the rebels could win, but they were about to lose. The US provided air support for the battles.
Most people do not realize that the Libyan affair was a cakewalk because the Russians and Chinese stood on the sidelines. This is why many people think Syria will be a cakewalk, but the Russians are fully engaged, and are not going to let Assad fall.
President drew his red line over WMD use. There were reports of WMD use, but he was determined to keep from crossing his red line. The British and French finally were able put together a report that he could not dismiss. Again, it looks like the rebels can win, but they just need some support.
He has agreed to send a few rifles and some bullets, and the US may conduct airstrikes against Syrian targets. Basically, as little as possible.
I believe that my reasoning explains many of President Obama’s foreign policy decisions. Apology tour – check. Dismantling nuclear weapons – check. Not meddling in the Middle East – check. Not firmly embracing Israel – check. The one constant about his foreign policy is that he is more concerned about foreigners than Americans.
A well thought out response, Tasty.
I personally haven’t read or heard anything about the French/British putting info together convincing the US to engage with the conflicts in Syria.
Regarding supplying small arms to Syrian rebels —> there have been reports flying around for some time that this was already being done clandestinely — something Stevens was a part of, accounting for his presence in Benghazi on that fateful day. Such an involvement, though, was being implemented on the QT, giving the President cover and plausible deniability so as not to create an edge with Russia, increasing tensions between the two countries.
I believe that my reasoning explains many of President Obama’s foreign policy decisions. Apology tour – check. Dismantling nuclear weapons – check. Not meddling in the Middle East – check. Not firmly embracing Israel – check. The one constant about his foreign policy is that he is more concerned about foreigners than Americans.
I agree with that last paragraph.
@jan
The irrefutable proof of WMD use in Syria is coming from the French and British, and everything they do is for their own self-interest. They have a reason for this report, and they do not have a problem massaging or cherry-picking the intel. They are probably concerned about Russia’s position if Assad stays in power, but they have been careful to not piss-off Vlad any more than they did in Libya.
If the French and British say that there was WMD used, they must be correct. To President Obama, foreigners are never wrong – unless the foreigners are Israeli.
I have heard about the gun running out of Benghazi, but I have not seen anything too convincing. There was some talk about the gun running being linked to intel gathering. This seems plausible because Gaddafi was supplying intel to the US and Europe. I do not rely on the political pundits for foreign or military issues. Something was going on in Benghazi, but nothing explains it so far.
The lax security was probably a combination of bureaucratic issues and appearance. The Libya and the US are BFF’s, and you would never accuse your BFF of stabbing you in the back. The Libyan’s have also been oppressed by colonial powers. Of course, the colonial powers are European countries which is inconvenient, but the Europeans are always right. It must be the American’s fault.
Blaming the video is probably political, but this was put together after the incident. Anybody with a few brain cells knew it was not “a spontaneous outburst from a video”. This was a lie from the first day, and anybody too stupid to understand this should be flipping burgers not advising the President on national security.
I suspect President is too disengaged, and any “deniability” is factual. The picture from the Bin Laden capture has always disturbed me. The President is sitting in the corner like a child. He should have been at the table with a laptop.