What we did right was recognize that a good idea didn’t have to come from us to make it a good idea. It’s not embarrassing at all. It’s a sign of maturity and reasonableness that is all too often missing from our foreign policy.
It’s not, really. It’s just that any other outcome is even less so. Really, aside from the chemical weapons bit, it’s none of our business.
Please tell me you are not as naive to believe that chemical weapons was the the issue. It was just the excuse. If you have not been following the news over the past years or so
- The US has had a policy of getting rid of Assad.
- There has been talk of getting directly involved for the entirety of 2013.
- The US has been providing support to various opposition groups.
- Unfortunately, the Syrian army proved a tad more competent than expected and started reversing rebel gains. This led to increased calls to be involved.
- This was supposed to be a Libya redux, the use of airpower and special forces to assist local fighters.
- The chemical weapons attack was the excuse…it failed.
- It failed, since Russia, Syria et al, called Obama’s bluff.
The fact of the matter is…Assad is still here. Read it, Assad is still here. He is winning. The loss of Chemical weapons does not hurt him in the least and he can reconstitute it at leisure.
Well, its great to know that Assad is now offering eye prescriptions to Satan…oh wait.:rolleyes:
“Has had”, maybe, but that has never been a policy of Obama’s administration. Just because Obama didn’t get what Bush wanted doesn’t make him a failure-- Rather, it just means that Bush wanted stupid things.
Again, for people thinking this was a horrible failure on the part of Obama or a terrible outcome for the US: what is the alternative and how much are you willing to spend to make that come true?
Sure, Assad’s a brutal dictator that any American would wish would disappear forever, but that’s not going to happen on its own. In order to remove such a person, you need to spend capital in soldiers and money, and political capital to get your own people and other countries to go along with it. How much are you willing to do that and how much is enough? What if we spent 2 trillion and somehow draw Iran into the war, is that worth it? What about 3 trillion and Israel gets hit by a retaliatory strike that levels a major city? What about 5 trillion and Al-Qaeda turns back the progress we’ve made in Iraq and turns that into Fallujah circa 2004?
To me, the benefits of ousting Assad was not worth the amount that we would have to spend in order to get it. This was pretty much a no-win scenario: the rebels were never strong enough to defeat him and they were peppered with terrorists to begin with. However, the fact that we got Syria to back down on chemical weapons, remove a WMD from their possession, drawn Russia into supporting that, AND used no blood or money to achieve it is a huge win in my book. If you want anything more, you’d have to tell me how many people are gonna die and how much money you want to put up for that end
I don’t believe that it was this WH’s policy to get rid of Assad. Got a cite for that?
:rolleyes:
Obama to press Putin to back Assad removal in Syria
These are all before the whole Chemical weapons fiasco. Seriously, have you not been following Syria? Because i) the US position has been clear and ii) nobody outside the US sees it as anything but a setback for the US.
You are missing the point. Diplomacy is not about right or wrong. Its about achieving ones goals. The USG had a policy on Syria. Which it failed to implement. The US was unable to get its way. That is the definition of a diplomatic setback.
I don’t think this was a failure on the part of Obama. I just don’t think he had nearly the influence over this course of events as Russia had.
Russia has a long standing relationship with Syria at a level the US just never has had. That has allowed Russia to exert diplomatic influence to prod Syria down a path of disarming their chemical weapons capabilities.
I don’t think Obama’s White House drew Russia into heading down the current path. It looks more like Russia led the way.
And that is not necessarily a bad thing. Good ideas need not be American in origin. Credit can go to the Obama administration for supporting a good idea just as credit can go to the leadership of many other countries who supported this diplomatic solution.
(bolding mine)
I think my counter-cites show that position **i) **is clearly false 
In any case, I partially retract my statement- the most recent White House position was not in favor of regime change, but there were some murky statements prior. Saying “Assad should step down” is not the same as an official policy of regime change.
Your ii) is a rather sweeping claim (really? nobody?)- I’m sure many outside as well as inside the US think that not getting involved in another war is the opposite of a setback for the US.
I do not read that as a policy to get rid of Assad. I read it as a stating that the policy goal is that the “future of Syria must be determined by its people” and that achieving that goal would be best served by having Assad “step aside” - note not be gotten rid of by active U.S. actions - explicitly stated as
Now one can be cynical and wonder how much what is stated publically is actually the policy goal. One can argue that U.S. selfish interests may not actually be democratically elected leadership in Syria but that saying such is requisite. What the U.S. may actually want might be to not have to get too involved while being percieved as supporting democratic reforms and avoiding excessive long term instability or a further rise of either Iranian or Al Qeada power … and to have influence over the side that ends up on top when all is said and done no matter how long and how many die on the way to getting all said and done. In short, U.S. selfish interests and policy is a long term game and at this point is focused on avoiding catastrophic outcomes on scales that could make the current horrible circumstance look good, at least from the U.S. interests’ perspective.
But taking words at face value you are confusing the stating a then current recommendation for how to achieve a policy goal, with the stated policy goal. The stated policy goal is not yet met either mind you … but that stated goal is the achievement of a democratic and inclusive Syrian government, not the “getting rid of Assad.”
You’re talking about getting rid of Assad? And getting rid of his WMDs was not a victory at all? I’d be fine if you said Obama didn’t achieve his main goal. I’d be fine if you said he only partially achieved his secondary goals. But you acted as if it was a total failure and ignored completely the win over the WMDs. That’s why you’re wrong and that’s why I responded.
I am totally and completely fine with giving Russia credit to make them look good. Ultimately, to get anywhere on Syria, we will need the Russians’ backing. Stroking their ego is a great way to do that, to the contrary of all those GOPers in Congress who bemoaned that Putin stole Obama’s thunder. To them, they cannot conceive of sharing credit, or not even taking all the credit due to you because sharing it makes everyone look good.
I see the WMD issue as being irrelevant to the main issue, which is US power and policy in the region. That has been impacted.
In many things that I do I am most effective if I have convinced the other parties involved that it was all their idea, not mine. I admire the way Obama sold Russia on a course of action and has functioned as playmaker. His approach reminds a bit of Thelonius Monk’s jazz - sometimes the notes not played are more important than the ones that are.
Policy is a constant work in progress that serves to maintain interests. Power comes in many forms and be exerted in ways other than bombing the shit out of places. It is measured in whether or not you are able to achieve outcomes that are least bad. Given the nature of the power that the U.S. had in the region as he began his stint, and how heavy handed attempts to exert power failed completely to achieve any of our desired outcomes and instead cost us mightily in treasure and lives and influence, how do you see U.S. power having been impacted by this era of more subtle power application?
My take … Big concerns for the U.S. - WMDs getting into the hands of Al Qeada or Iran; Iran or Al Qaeda becoming ascendent either in weaponry or in support and influence; more attacks against U.S. interests; a major regional conflagration that shuts down oil production and impacts the world economy. Avoiding more boots on the ground as much as possible. Long term goal, more stable governments that are aligned with United States interests, preferably ones that are democratic and inclusive of a variety of factions including in particular, secular ones. So far all short term concerns are avoided. Long term … we’ll see. The game is in progress.
So you see this as a missed opportunity for the US to bomb another ME country to “maintain US power and policy in the region”, FTW…?
Or, are you criticizing the current US administration for depriving you of the opportunity to criticize the current US administration for bombing another ME country, etc, FTW…?
Or, are you just criticizing the current US administration for getting up in the morning?
Obviously a fan of Carnegie’s, “How to Win Friends and Influence People.” 
And yet Russia called all the shots and got everything it wanted. Who was playing whom here? Frankly, Russia had more to fear from Syrian CWs than the US, what with the winter Olympics coming up and a number of Chechen fighters in Syria who would probably love nothing better than to get hold of some of those and send them into the Caucuses for a gold medal in terrorism at the Winter Games.
Even the UNSC resolution was written as Russia wanted it-- no teeth to back up non-compliance. And the US aid to rebels? Don’t here much about that any more. Assad, Russia’s ally, is safer than he has been in a long time.
It will be good to get rid of CWs, for sure. But this is much more of a triumph for Russia than it is for the US.
And why isn’t that okay? In fact, why isn’t that better than okay?