I’ve just published a foreign policy-related post at Outside the Beltway:
A rather peripatetic post that starts out at public opinion on military action against Syria, takes a detour at the problems that secrecy presents to a democratic society, veers into the obligations of elected representatives in a representative democracy, and ends with a prescription for what the president should do before he takes action.
I think that before taking military action against Syria the president should wait for the UN inspectors’ report, try to secure approval from the Congress, and try to secure approval from the United Nations Security Council. If none of those support the actions he intends to take, he should then do as he sees best, in the full recognition that there may be consequences to those decisions.
I partially agree with your conclusions. IMO, the U.S. should have conclusive proof of the usage of chemical weapons, which is then shared with the people. There should also be an open debate in Congress, and the executive branch should seek their approval to confront Syria’s ‘crimes’ by actions agreeable to both the Congress and the WH.
For Obama to involve the U.S. in a military action, having so many untoward consequences attached to such a decision, should have the approval of a greater swathe of government than just the brass at the WH. It should be noted that whatever follows such a confrontation will then have to be shouldered by all of us, not just Obama and his administrative team of advisors. Even when Bush made his ill-fated decision to go into Iraq, he did so with collaboration and authorization by Congress. And, it should be further noted that both Biden and Obama were at odds with the Bush administration, had not that course of congressional consultation not been taken — Biden going as far as to say it would be an impeachable offense should this not happen.
Regarding awaiting the UN’s approval — I see them more as a figurehead of world authority, rather than a membership of world leaders having real wisdom or genuine follow-thru that is worth anything.
Deserved criticism continues to mount, towards this administration’s bumbling foreign policy: The Obama-Syria meltdown.
This reminds me how he domestically handled the Cambridge incident, and even more recently Trayvon Martin.
More questions arise, though, as to the real nature of the Syrian attack that is creating the possibility of a US military involvement.
Doesnt remind me at all of Trayvon. Let me take that back. He made a few mild, uncontroversial remarks, and the right went crazy. This time he made a mix of good and bad remarks, and the right went crazy. Ahhh, there is something in common.
I strongly suspect that the military has advised him ways to help tell if it was a real chemical attack. I can see how you might accidentally read something so stupid. I cant see why you would quote it.
Steve
Steve,
No matter what this president does you find a silver lining in his actions.
I, BTW, don’t see the right going crazy, as you say, but just very puzzled in trying to figure out WTF is the long term strategy being deployed, other than a knee jerk one of sending destroyers over to Syria to look ominous.
It’s also pretty clear how Obama’s remarks about Martin and the Cambridge prof are similar to ones he made about Syria’s red line — all were said off the cuff and without thinking much about any long term ramifications.
jan- What long term ramifications on the Trayvon remarks? That the right will go crazy whenever the issue of race is brought up?
On Syria, I think it pretty clear, I just happen to disagree with it. The world decided a long time ago that we would unite against the use of chemical weapons. Assad has now used them (if the tests are positive). If you do nothing when people actually use them, they will be used more often. Since chemical weapons are a real force multiplier, and relatively cheap at that, we have valid reasons to worry about them. We want conflict decided with guns and bombs.
There is nothing knee jerk about this. It is serious stuff. The real issues (once we determine if they were really used and by whom) are whether or not we should be the world’s policeman, will it work, what is the fallout, can we afford this role and some others. We have certainly stood aside and watched in the past and regretted not intervening. It would be nice if this had real debate.
Steve
@steve
… Since chemical weapons are a real force multiplier …
Chemical and biological weapons have limited effectiveness. The really nasty ones tend to be fragile regarding environmental conditions, and they are easily defeated.
On the battlefield, they are good as a delay tactic to keep the enemy in the kill zone while they suit-up. Against a 2nd or 3rd rate army they may be more effective, but no 1st rate army is going to use them. Conventional weapons are more effective.
Against civilians, duct tape and plastic sheeting will protect against most attacks. They are still discovering Anthrax in the Post Offices where the attacks took place. The subway bombings in Japan were also mostly ineffective.
… It would be nice if this had real debate.
Yes it would, but the partisans would need to shut the f*ck up. Both sides are guilty. Everything is not President Obama’s fault, and all criticism of him is not a partisan/racist attack.
I do not criticize his actions to keep it from devolving into a food fight, but I have them. I am not inclined to back down, but the few times I have been baited, I just ignore it. In the end it does not matter, it is all politics, all the time. The only outcome that matters is political advantage.
This is a general question for anybody: How many deaths by WMD are equal to deaths by conventional weapons? The present ratio is 1,000 : 100,000.
“What long term ramifications on the Trayvon remarks? That the right will go crazy whenever the issue of race is brought up? “
Steve,
Clarification: Martin was used as a partial example of Obama’s tendancy to speak before he thinks about the effects of what he has to say, in a long term and broader sense. IOW, I was talking about Obama’s lack of circumspection when he discusses issues, be they ones dealing with sensitive social issues (such as race) or others involving foreign entanglements (like Syria). Blurting out PC phrases like “he looks like my son,” or muscular super power threats of “crossing red lines,” do stick in people’s minds and have long term ramifications and unintended consequences.
You are again citing the ‘right as going crazy.’ Well, a lot more people than purely the right are disturbed with this administration’s domestic agenda and erratic ‘leading from behind’ tendancies, when it comes to foreign policy. For instance, Obama’s ‘coalition of the willing,’ has been reduced to a small group consisting of Denmark, maybe Kosovo, New Zealand, with hopes Iceland may come on board. Now, when Bush developed his coalition of some 48 countries, he was roundly chided for having so many small-fry countries in this group. But, Obama can’t even get a fraction of that for his foray into Syria, and yet all you can do is say the ‘right’ is going crazy! What would it take to ever rile you, Steve, out of your stupor, that everything is going swell under such myopic and unilateral leadership that appears only to be growing under Obama? Also, the chemical weapon meme is still in the process of being ‘proven.’ There have been some reports that intercepted messages were distorted, containing some of the proof that Obama is basing his attack on. The situation there is basically still muddled and being sorted out, and yet we have multiple navy assets on alert for attack????
“Yes it would, but the partisans would need to shut the f*ck up. Both sides are guilty. Everything is not President Obama’s fault, and all criticism of him is not a partisan/racist attack.”
Tasty,
I agree. However, the tone in DC is usually set and then regulated by who is in power at the time. When GWB was POTUS, he was the one held responsible. Now that Obama has that job, he should be held to the same standard. And, IMO he is faring no better, and perhaps even worse, than Bush, in managing a civil dialogue on all sides.
In fact today, GWB was asked to critique Obama’s Syrian policy, and he refused (as has always been the case) to be cornered into criticizing the President’s current dilemma — a courtesy and attitude not extended by Obama towards Bush, in the last 5 years. In fact, “bashing” the former president has been the theme of this administration, making someone else the scapegoat for any and all of Obama’s own failures or missteps.
@jan
Like I say to children fighting, I do not care who started it, but like children, partisans seem to forget what they did.
President Bush was trashed incessantly by his political opponents. I think it was unfair, mostly untrue, and borderline treasonous. I did not like it.
President Clinton was accused of having some involvement with Vince Foster’s death. It was insinuated that he was murdered. It was vile and disgusting. President Clinton was impeached because he lied about a blowjob. He should have told the Grand Jury to f*ck off.
President Bush, the Elder, was tricked into raising taxes. President Reagan was tricked into not cutting spending, amnesty for illegal aliens, etc. Carter, Ford, LJB, JFK, … George Washington all had crap heaped upon them. (Nixon was a piece of sh*t who deserved a lot more crap heaped upon him.)
Now criticizing the president is racist if he is black. This is especially infuriating when the accusers are white people who intentionally segregate themselves from black folks. Many white folks are racially insensitive and ignorant bigots, and this does not help the racial problems.
A partisan does not have a philosophically consistent argument, and a politician does not need to be a partisan. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Sen. Ron Wyden, Sen. Rand Paul, and Rep. Ron Paul do not change positions because it is politically expedient.
Tasty,
The first sentence of the last paragraph is spot on! What irritates me is when two presidents from different parties act in similar ways but receive different responses, depending on their party affiliation. Justified criticism should be based on an honest analysis of a policy, not on whether or not there is a D or R after a name.
Also, shooting missiles at another country is an act of war, period, whether or not it develops into an ongoing war. Saying anything different, or assigning such a gesture to some kind of secondary category is either naive, disingenuous, or a person is simply in denial.
@jan
Do you keep a sledgehammer handy to smash your favorite assumptions if the are faulty? If no, you are part of the problem.
A policy discussion should not become a tit-for-tat about any president. Criticizing the president should be based upon specific points not broad sweeping generalities. The president, his party, his supporters, and politicians in his party need to be addressed individually, or the commonalities need to be supported.
Some things are unhelpful. Everybody has an opinion on whether the mainstream media are biased. Few people are going to change their opinion, and bringing it up side-tracks the debate. Partisans are going to change positions for political advantage, and they are going to have an excuse for it. Again, few people are going to change their opinion, and bringing it up side-tracks the debate.
Partisans always claim they want a policy debate, and they immediately drag a lot of partisan baggage into the debate. If an argument cannot stand on its own, it will eventually crumble.