Notice the political drama playing out in the national debate on action against Syria. The “National Greatness” hawks are making common cause with the liberal interventionists in the Congress to vote in favor of authorization while the American people, 4:1 by the most recent polls, are overwhelmingly against attacking Syria.
This national conversation reflects forces that have been contending for some time, the Wilsonians vs. the pessimistic realists (Jacksonians) and the pessimistic idealists (Jeffersonians). I strongly suspect the Hamiltonians, the optimistic realists, will heighten their complaints about paying for the attacks and their outcome, adding their voices to the conversation.
If the Congress votes to authorize the president to attack Syria or if the president proceeds without Congressional authorization, we may be moving into a period of real political crisis.
Although, public opinion is currently against proceeding with military action in Syria, President Obama has yet to use his charm offensive on the people. That’s finally going to happen this coming Tuesday, in a planned public address.
It’s worked in the past, especially with the MSM and his diehard fans. The mark he has to aim for is neither coherency, consistency nor presenting additional facts. All he has to produce is an inspirational speech — much like what is demanded of motivational speakers. Soaring words tends to delete pending logic. And, if he fails at making his case, or if he makes his case and fails in achieving anything positive from bombing Syria, there is always the failsafe final option of just pinning blame on the republicans. That’s been a surefire winner for the past 4 plus years.
In the meantime, there is a growing consensus that the president will not attack Syria without first obtaining Congressional authorization to do so. That’s probably why he has stooped to recently courting republicans’ input, something that Rep Kinzinger (R) claimed on MSNBC has never happened in his 2 1/2 years of being in Congress. But then again, if Congress denies the president his red-line vindication, and he honors their wishes, the opposition party can once again be blamed for their calleous disregard for human life, as the rampage continues in Syria. IMO, the calculus of most decisions made by Obama, deal with exit strategies getting him off the hook should things not work out to his advantage.
It’s a wonderful circular kind of leadership, where scapegoating is always available as the last resort to accountability.
I’ve been thinking of the four schools of thought as well. Clearly, a Wilsonian venture and I see nothing about it that would appeal to Hamiltonians or Jeffersonians.
There could be an appeal made to Jacksonians based upon outrage over dishonorable attacks on civilians. Such people do not deserve an honorable response, but should be attacked and killed at convenience. I listened a little to an Illinois Congressman (Republican) supporting war this morning — an Iraqi war veteran, calming saying what they did was wrong, you know its wrong, and standing up to them is the right thing to do.
Jan:
Now, if you could just detoxify your Fox gland long enough to add that the scapegoating works even better in the other direction where Obama will be blamed no matter what, I’d start to think you had a grasp on just what a no-win clusterfuck we have on our hands.
It’s the odd genius of the middle east that it is capable of producing an endless supply of no-win scenarios. They lead the world in production of oil and no-win scenarios.
PD:
It’s possible that a sales campaign based on Assad as a dishonorable enemy could work. However, I think that there are several problems with attracting the support of Jacksonians to this particular enterprise.
First, they always tend to be wary of foreigners. From their point of view it wouldn’t just be Assad who’s dishonorable and to be eliminated. It would be all Syrians.
Second, they do not tend to believe in limited war. “Hearts and minds” stuff tends not to appeal to Jacksonians. That’s why they felt so hornswoggled about Iraq. They thought we were going to go in, kill about a quarter of the population, subdue the country, and remake it a la Japan. You encounter that again and again in the discussion of Syria. Now that they know that’s not on the program, they’re much more wary.
The more the president sells Syria as a short-term limited campaign, the less attractive it will be to Jacksonians. In essence he’s got to choose between his core Wilsonian supporters and Jacksonians.
If “Responsibility to Protect” becomes the official US foreign policy doctrine, aren’t we going to need to go on a WWII type footing? And shouldn’t we start by invading at least the northern reaches of Mexico to protect the people living there from the horrors of the drug cartels?
We could also invade Haiti, to protect it from the gross incompetence of its governing class. (This is the first year I can recall when scores if not many more Haitians haven’t been killed by mudslides when tropical systems pass overhead. But the season still has three months to go….) For that matter, we could invade places like Chicago, Baltimore and Detroit.
Seriously, how does one place limits on a responsibility to protect doctrine? Forget going into Rwanda in 1994 – we would have had to occupy large sections of central Africa in the 1990s due to the many party wars that were going on there at the time. And under this doctrine, shouldn’t we be putting boots on the ground in Libya, to clean up the mess we helped create? Not to mention that Egypt continues to be a gigantic clusterfuck.
Seriously, who decides WHOM* we must protect, and how do they reach their conclusions?
* No idea if that should be who or whom.
It would be limited by whim. Politics. Sort of like now except with less restraint.
“I’d start to think you had a grasp on just what a no-win clusterfuck we have on our hands.”
Your mindless “I hate Obama” accusation aside, this is really the point. This is one of the more vexing issues I’ve seen in a while. Which is why I pointed out, Obama showed his incompetence by not recognizing this and painting himself into a corner early. Rookie error. Now tries to extract himself for political gain. The policy has been incoherent. Better to just say “the situation is more complex (or has changed) and we need to rethink our options” than “not my red line….Congresses fault…..the worlds fault.” Cowardly.
I’d give him “this issue is a bitch” get out of jail card in a heartbeat. But his corporate gamesman approach shows him for what he is.
“They lead the world in production of oil and no-win scenarios.”
And so Obama is pursuing self destructive green energy policy why? Oh, that’s right, green votes.
Michael,
You and I could probably argue, infinitum, about which party denounces and scapegoats the other more ruthlessly, and still remain on opposite ends of agreement. IMO, though, Obama would serve his presidency better, gleaning more respect from all pockets of the political spectrum, if he drew a circle around his term in office and owned it, rather than going back and bringing in refrains of Bush. It simply lacks class, and diminishes his leadership standing in the country.
Also, regarding ME policy, it was Obama who decided to try a new tact (altogether different from Bush) in the ME, by becoming a mellower more back-seat type of super power — hence the ‘leading from behind’ meme was created. Now, that he has had a test spin with this kind of ‘doctrine’, one can assess it, asking how it’s working out for us. Victor Davis Hanson has written a piece, published in NRO asserting that if it wasn’t Syria it would have been something else. As a military historian Hanson not only defines the mess we have gotten ourselves into with Syria, but connects the dots to the hubris displayed by this president at other foreign policy crossroads:
It’s like following the bread crumbs of past decisions and indecisions and finally arriving where we are today, the crisis in Syria, which has similar muddled components tying them all together in one big crescendo. Bush certainly made horrific mistakes in his ME excursions. However, I think Obama is making more errors of judgment having deeper, searing repercussions in the future.
@ Dave, I agree there are aspects that Jacksonians definitely wouldn’t like, particularly lack of connection of the conflict to the homeland. Stories like “Syrian Rebels with ties to al-Qaeda Attack Christian Village under Government Control” don’t help. But I think Wilsonian/Jacksonian is the broadest coalition he can hope for, and try to downplay the conflicts. The President should ask McCain to join him in the address.
It would be limited by whim. Politics. Sort of like now except with less restraint.
So, just new clothes for the emperor. I’m sure this’ll work out.
” However, I think Obama is making more errors of judgment having deeper, searing repercussions in the future.”
Tripe. He took Libya with almost no losses and cheaply. Bush cost us trillions, and no one trusts our intelligence anymore, or our actions. Obama would really have to try, to come even close to the incompetency and mistakes of the Iraq war.
Steve
Jan:
If you want to be taken seriously don’t quote Victor Davis Hanson who backed the most incompetent foreign policy team at least since Vietnam.
Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld invaded a country and had NO plan for what to do with it. Literally none. Not “kinda” none, not “almost” none, literally none. They apparently thought Jesus would send his angels or maybe My Little Pony would help out.
VDH can’t get past the fact that he fell for these cretins and now he’s throwing scat in the air in a desperate effort to get us to forget. I also fell for them, but I admit it. And I sobered up a lot faster than VDH. That would be the difference there: some tell the truth and pay the price, others lie and obfuscate and deny responsibility.
And remember this: Bush drew the “dead or alive” red line and then failed spectacularly to pay off on it. It was Obama that made good on Bush’s threat. And before you parrot the dishonest right-wing line that OBL didn’t really matter, get ready to explain why Bush laid down that marker to begin with.
You want to talk about Obama’s problems? Fine. For the record, I oppose Obama on this. But you cannot have a conversation where you show up tossing off the horse shit that Fox has filled your head with. Get in touch with reality first, then we can talk. Otherwise you’re just a rebroadcast of the Hannity show.
What annoys me about Republicans is that they don’t even know their own history on FP.
Who made nice with Mao and Zhou Enlai while they were funneling weapons to Vietnam to kill off our erstwhile allies and while the murderous Cultural Revolution was still under way? That would be Republican Nixon. And he was right.
Who cut our losses in Korea and refused to follow the advice of his generals to press for a larger, even nuclear war? That would be Republican Eisenhower. And he was right.
Who cut and ran from Lebanon after 241 Marines were blown up in their barracks? That would be Republican Ronald Reagan. And he was probably somewhat right.
Three examples of what the Foxbots would denounce as “weakness.” Then along came Mr. Bush the Younger and boy did he love to swagger and talk tough. And boy he was a fuck-up. And yet the Foxbots are still obsessing over the manly man act as if that’s the point, as if that’s the history, as if puffing out our chests and stuffing our codpieces for a strut around an aircraft carrier was the height of brilliance. Your Mr. Bush added at a minimum a trillion dollars to the national debt to pay for a war he lost by sheer stupidity.
Don’t talk about FP until you can deal with that reality. Accept it. He didn’t make “a few mistakes.” He was a disaster.
If you want to be taken seriously don’t quote Victor Davis Hanson who backed the most incompetent foreign policy team at least since Vietnam.
Sorry Michael, but I like VDH. I know he draws a lot of flak over at OTB. But then I feel the same about your Pulitzer Prize winner, Paul Krugman, when it comes to spewing ideological theory that is incongruent with reality. IOW, each to his/her own….
Steve,
Whatever faults Bush had, they are becoming less onerous, in hindsight, than what Obama is fomenting at the moment. In this foray with Syria, where is the coalition of the willing? How many allies does he have on his side, after making all these bombastic threats? Only France seems to be quivering in the wings. Rumors of New Zealand, Kosovo, Iceland backing the U.S. must have been just that, rumors.
Bush may not have had the ‘beloved’ factor in his favor, as Obama has had during his tenure in office. But, he was respected, deliberate in his goals, diplomatically professional in getting 40+ countries on board before any military action was broadcast. And, he was feared by the ME, which is an asset, in lieu of a culture who views strength as a deterrent to taking untoward action towards us..
Obama, OTOH, has become a laughing stock, a farce in the eyes of an ever-growing faction of people who want us gone. In fact, his weak, ambivalent behavior is raising Putin’s world image, making him look good at the G20 meeting. You need to take your eyes off the rear view mirror, cursing Bush’s mistakes, and focus more on the one’s facing us today, that are only being made worse by our current president.
jan: And, he was feared by the ME, which is an asset, in lieu of a culture who views strength as a deterrent to taking untoward action towards us.
After the Gulf War, and the initial invasion of Afghanistan, the U.S. looked omnipotent.
It is a truism that great military power depends on mobility; from the ability to strike when and where the power wants. The Romans had their roads, the Arabs the desert, the Vikings their longships, the Mongols the steppes, the British the seas, the Americans the air.
However, the occupations pinned the U.S. down, while allowing the enemy to study the moral, political, economic, and military limits of U.S. power. Ultimately, Bush severely drained America’s ability to project power, weakened its alliances, and distracted the U.S. from the task of security.