I haven't written much about this in part as I honestly don't know what the best course of action is. It seems to me that it's something of a catch 22-we're darned if we do and darned if we don't.
I mean the U.S.-and Obama-will get killed if we don't intervene by the Right and others and the same will happen if we do intervene. I mean on the one hand what's happening to Syrian citizens during this bloody civil war is a travesty. Nevertheless is it for us to intervene unilaterally? Haven't we done too much of this already particularly in the Bush years?
Of course, if we don't intervene many will criticize 'allowing' these atrocities to proceed-with the strong possibility that chemical weapons are being used on Syrian citizens. We've heard a lot about our credibility somehow being on the line if we don't intervene-as Obama 'drew a line in the sand' and to not respond when this line has been crossed will embolden our enemies the world over and endanger us to further terrorist attacks.
In addition, we get the usual politically motivated attacks by GOPers that he has 'abdicated his responsibility' by not taking military action. International opinion too would probably criticize us whether we do or don't take action in Syria. With all this in view, the President perhaps has taken the optimum action, one that is actually rather inspired: he's done something that hasn't been done in years: called on Congress to debate this question and come to a decision.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/obama-to-speak-on-syria-96122.html?hp=t1_s
Ironically, even in response to Obama consulting Congress, we have a Republican like Peter King claiming Obama has abdicated his responsibility.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/319801-peter-king-obama-abdicating-responsibility-as-commander-in-chief
During the Libyan intervention-undertaken as part of a NATO initiative, not unilaterally-many Republicans, and some on the Left, reproached Obama for not allowing Congress to debate it. Some Republicans-Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are giving Obama credit for seeking Congressional approval.
So again, we see it's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. With that in mind, this was perhaps the best action he could have taken-I have no doubt it was a good action and it may have been the best action. The question of whether to proceed without UN or NATO support was difficult as Russia was obstructing any hope of a collaborative effort. At least this way Congress will have its fingerprints on this as well. While the GOP and others in Congress will take potshots at Obama no matter whether we go through with this or not, they will not be able to evade their own responsibility this time whether the choice turns out to be the right one or not. This in itself makes Obama's move inspired.
I mean the U.S.-and Obama-will get killed if we don't intervene by the Right and others and the same will happen if we do intervene. I mean on the one hand what's happening to Syrian citizens during this bloody civil war is a travesty. Nevertheless is it for us to intervene unilaterally? Haven't we done too much of this already particularly in the Bush years?
Of course, if we don't intervene many will criticize 'allowing' these atrocities to proceed-with the strong possibility that chemical weapons are being used on Syrian citizens. We've heard a lot about our credibility somehow being on the line if we don't intervene-as Obama 'drew a line in the sand' and to not respond when this line has been crossed will embolden our enemies the world over and endanger us to further terrorist attacks.
In addition, we get the usual politically motivated attacks by GOPers that he has 'abdicated his responsibility' by not taking military action. International opinion too would probably criticize us whether we do or don't take action in Syria. With all this in view, the President perhaps has taken the optimum action, one that is actually rather inspired: he's done something that hasn't been done in years: called on Congress to debate this question and come to a decision.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/obama-to-speak-on-syria-96122.html?hp=t1_s
Ironically, even in response to Obama consulting Congress, we have a Republican like Peter King claiming Obama has abdicated his responsibility.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/319801-peter-king-obama-abdicating-responsibility-as-commander-in-chief
During the Libyan intervention-undertaken as part of a NATO initiative, not unilaterally-many Republicans, and some on the Left, reproached Obama for not allowing Congress to debate it. Some Republicans-Rand Paul and Ted Cruz are giving Obama credit for seeking Congressional approval.
So again, we see it's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. With that in mind, this was perhaps the best action he could have taken-I have no doubt it was a good action and it may have been the best action. The question of whether to proceed without UN or NATO support was difficult as Russia was obstructing any hope of a collaborative effort. At least this way Congress will have its fingerprints on this as well. While the GOP and others in Congress will take potshots at Obama no matter whether we go through with this or not, they will not be able to evade their own responsibility this time whether the choice turns out to be the right one or not. This in itself makes Obama's move inspired.
This is the type of situation that I want the US to lead on, problem is we have led the rest of the world into a couple of dubious forays already this decade. I think taking strong human right stances here and in many parts of Africa are the things that many of our young people could get behind. Starting wars to enhance oil rights are just the type of things that make us cynical.
ReplyDeleteWell there have been dubious forays for sure but Libya was basically a positive intervention because we did it with an international consensus. While we had a big hand in it we did it with political support.
ReplyDeleteSyria is tough as on humanitarian grounds there's a good case but Russia is scuttling the UN and NATO options. Even England voted against it however.
How do you feel specifically about Syria-would you agree with U.S. intervention of any kind? My guess is in geopolitical relations you'll never get a pure humaiatarian action but you can get a situation where there's a melding of interests and humanitarianism.
I think the world is late to the game with Syria to be honest. There should be very strict lines regarding what is acceptable behavior from govts regarding treatment of their citizens and we need a supra national multi state body, like the UN, that is allowed to have the resources to step in and stop despots. Syria crossed those lines long ago in my view. The US should lead on some effort like this as we had been at least the one powerful country, in the last 100 years I would say, that has preached universal human rights. Truth is though, most very rich and very powerful people are dubious of "human rights". All they see that as is costing THEM more.
ReplyDeleteOk, Greg, just so we're clear you would support U.S. intervention here of the kind that Obama has talked about? For me the trouble is that we may be the most powerful country but there is always international opinon to think of-one problem with Bush-Cheney is that they ignored this crucial poin.
ReplyDeleteWhen even Britian votes against doing anything on Syria it's not so easy. In Libya we had even many Arab countries asking us to intervene.
What I'm saying then is that even if intervention is the right choice here it's very difficult politically.
That's why I like Obama's idea of a vote in Congress. At least they will have some responsiblity now for whatever we end up doing rather than just taking potshots from the sidelines.
ReplyDeleteAgree totally Mike. Given the circumstances we have created, putting this up for Congressional discussion and decision is right. He is not King and does not need to act like one.
DeleteAnd I do think the type of intervention he has talked about I could support. I wished for more and earlier but...........