Among the many ways of dividing people into two sorts, one of the saddest is between those who oppose everything the president does because he’s done it and those who support it for the same reason. Eugene Robinson, apparently, is in the latter camp:
All of the above makes Syria a place to tread lightly and carefully. Putin’s action has provoked calls for Obama to do something, anything, and I’m sure the Republican presidential candidates will have lots of bellicose advice. Most will involve action the president might have taken several years ago, when the war began. Only Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has a real alternative plan — send tens of thousands of U.S. troops into Syria and Iraq — and he’s barely registering 1 percent in the polls.
The simple fact is that Russia has a clear way to achieve its immediate goals in Syria while the United States does not. Obama’s continued reluctance to act for action’s sake is prudent — and presidential. He is right to keep the national interest in mind, not the national ego.
He sees the president’s actions with respect to Syria as caution; I see them as acting for the sake of being able to say you’re doing something. Delivering materiel to “moderate rebels”, i.e. violent radical Islamists affiliated with Al Qaeda is not by any means “cautious”. It’s feckless. Our policy in Syria could be better if the president had us doing nothing at all.
As always, I try to stick to commenting seriously only about things I think I know something about. Middle a Eastern foreign policy doesn’t really qualify.
I do think I find myself in agreement with the general thrust of comments and posts here. That being, minimal US involvement (eg. No red lines and other such BS) and let the Russians do some heavy lifting. However, I don’t find myself as critical of alternative views as,others, which appear to me to be rooted in a legitimately held – rightly or wrongly – concern that the worlds superpower cannot simply avoid engagement and leave a vacuum for whomever comes along. Say, the Russians. Russian involvement in such a critical part or the world will it seem come with a cost as well as a benefit.
So it’s a question, not an assertion, can the US really just turn their heads without future harm to it’s more general interests in the region?
What are our interests in the region? I’d say keeping oil flowing, Israel, and human rights. Stability fosters all of those. Governments dominated by violent radical Islamists hurt all of those. Assad is lousy but he’s no worse than the rest of the Alawites and they’re better than the violent radical Islamists that would replace them. So why are we supporting the Islamists?
Is it really possible do nothing? If we were Britain, maybe, but with our form of government I am not really sure it is possible to do nothing when the opposition wants to do a lot. OTOH, compared with the favorability ratings of Congress, Obama’s is sky high, so maybe he really is just being a wimp.
Steve
For the people who want President Obama to do something, what exactly has impressed you so far that makes you think he is going to do a bang up job on Syria?
Most of you blame him for Iraq, Libya, Syria, ISIS, Iran, Ukraine, and Russia, but Syria is where he is going to get a win. Team Obama is going from 0-7 to 1-7 against four of the seven loses, and three of the four will be working together.
I would suggest that whatever he does you ain’t gonna like.
Backing the effectively nonexistent unicorn “moderates” was foolish from the beginning. You either have to back a horse that has a chance of winning, or confine efforts to containment and the support of allies. We did neither. Thus our airstrikes against Daesh are strategically irrelevant.
We could have done a lot more in terms of internally and externally displaced persons – of course Europe could have as well and now they are paying for their shortsightedness.
Thanked, folks. For frame of reference, standing by doesn’t work in my world. Competition is always moving, with consequences.
Maybe I have missed it, but with the exception of the neocons in Iraq, I have never seen, heard or read about the end goals of any of these interventions. I do not mean regime change. I mean what is the result of the regime change supposed to accomplish.
a) deny territory to terrorists
b) establish regional presence
c) dominate region
d) protect trading routes
e) protect trading partners
f) establish trading partners
g) create trading opportunities
h) modern liberal democracy
i) multi-cultural/ethnic society
j) modern industrialized nation
k) fully functional government
l) modern Western army
– strategy, tactics, training
m) fully capable army
n) modern banking and commerce
o) …
I realize there may be a combination, but is there an agreed upon list? Whatever the goals are, the results seem to be #o (…).
How does anybody intend to get from A to B when B is undefined? Actually, anyplace is correct if the goal is undefined, but this includes not moving from A. (It could also include moving all over the place and ending back at A.)
@Drew
When a CEO is making one bad decision after another and is running the company into into the ground, I doubt you encourage him/her to continue to make bad decisions because the company needs to keep moving forward. I suspect you dump the CEO (and his/her team) or the company’s stock.
Until the next election, you are stuck with the president and his bad decisions.
“Do something, even if it is wrong,” does not seem like a winning strategy to me, but what do I know?
TB
I really was referencing the concept of some action, as might be espoused by anyone, and the general notion that standing still or evacuating the scene is usually not a viable alternative.
I’m really more interested in the idea than the person. I know people probably won’t believe it, but if Barack Obama had/implemented what I thought were good policy decisions it say so. It’s just that such occurrences fall under the title of rare events. People may recall I was no big fan of GWB, either.