Bush wanted to get rid of Assad?:dubious:
When?
Bush (or at least, his advisors) wanted to get involved in every country in the Middle East.
John Mace, I am very disappoint. Did you not see this, not recognize its significance, or intentionally ignore it in your own post?
I don’t see the significance of that statement. Obama’s policy is that “Assad must go”. That does not mean we will do everything in our power to make it happen, because we’re obviously not ready to invade, if that’s what it takes. We’re not going to assassinate him.
So what if we won’t “impose” that policy on Syria? It’s still our policy, and that means we will (generally) support efforts that lead towards that goal and we (generally) won’t support efforts that lead away from that goal. It means that Assad has gone too far, and that we won’t support any long term plan that keeps him in power.
Now, the Syrian people don’t need our support if they really want to keep Assad. And we’re not going to void an election if they have one and Assad wins. But if there are two plans on the table that are identical except that one has Assad remaining in power, and one does not, we’re going to throw our support behind the latter, not the former.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you missed this post earlier in this thread:
Yes it is a success. Thanks to the glorious non interventionist leanings of the American public, war cries from the president and many hawks were smothered without hesitation. It gave me confidence for the future of the US. The people flexed on the oligarchs and it was game over for the Obamas, Powers, mccains, and Cheneys of the world.
“War cries from the President”?
Calling this result as due to Obama’s “skills” is a good laugh. Russia gave Obama an out (he would have faced a humiliating defeat in Congress on this). His “red line” speech was ridiculous-he made threats that he could not back up-and he knew that he could not. As for the destruction of the nerve gas-maybe that is something-but the Syrians can make more of it anytime they wish.
As for regime change in Syria-ain’t gonna happen-the Syrian moderates realize that Assad is the lesser of two evils. As for the Syrian dead and displaced-it really sucks for them, but the US needs to stop playing world cop-we are broke, and the likely results are not worth the cost.
Am I seriously the only person in the country who remembers “red line” rhetoric dating back before Obama?
Considering the Syrian revolution started in 2011, I don’t understand the question. Are you suggesting the US has always had a red line for chemical weapons use? Because that is certainly not true.
Well, for all WMD use in general. And not “always”, of course, but certainly at least back to W’s administration.
So you’re asking whether I remember the run up to the Iraqi invasion? Why yes, I do. Not sure what that has to do with Syria.
Just to clarify, since I hate it when people pose faux-naive questions in GD like I just did, I’ll address this argument head on.
The idea that President Obama would feel beholden to the WMD policies of George W. Bush is absurd. Especially when those policies were largely drummed up to justify an invasion of Iraq that Obama is fervently against and that the country largely regrets.
Yes, the US has always been against gassing civilians, but it’s never bombed anyone because of it. Iraq and Syria both gassed people in the 80s. The only time we did do something about it (2003 invasion of Iraq) we got egg on our face rather spectacularly. President Obama was elected on a specific platform of undoing Bush-era foreign policy; he’s not going to feel any obligation to somehow continue enforcing it.
Is it that Obama is one of the few heads of state that used the threat of military strikes to force the diplomatic outcome that caused you to defer the credit to Putin instead if Obama for getting it initiated.
Without threat of US strikes for crossing the red line there was no need for Putin or Assad to act.
In the lost and forgotten cause and effect world I find it interesting that Putin refused to act as he did until after it became apparent that Obama was intent on launching some missiles at Assad’s military Russian made targets.
What or who made a face saving concession.
I do not dissagree with your general premise but in this case the good idea actually did originated from the White House. And Putin was forced to solve a problem that his nation has much accountable for creating in the first place.
No Russian support for Assad no Russian backed minority dictators stockpiling chemical weapons as Assad did.
I’d like to see what makes you think the Assad regime could reconstitute its CW arsenal at leisure or why he would ever need or seek to do it?
What would have happened if the public hasn’t been so opposed to bombing? Would it then not have been postponed? Why are we still giving aid to the rebels?
The problem is you have both conservatives and liberals trying to paint this as either a stunning victory or humiliating loss for Obama. Its more complicated than that. Putin had to reign in the leash on Syria by having them turn over their chemical weapons, but his ally in the region remains in place. Obama loses the opportunity to more strongly tip the odds in favor of the rebels, but shows that the US doesn’t tolerate WMDs.
However, it also sends a message that you can use chemical weapons for a limited time and still remain in power. And now were back to square one with the US backing the rebels and Russia backing the regime. Both sides trying to amass as many allies in the region in order to make the other super power less effective.
Yes. War cries from the president. the people rejected his shallow posturing. This was widely known before Syria and Russia agreed to the deal.
No, we’re on to a new square. Putin’s ally, Assad, is winning the civil war, and the US is not aiding the rebels. Had the deal that Russia proposed not been accepted, and Obama went on his bombing spree, he would have almost certainly had to agree to give significant aid to the rebels going forward. That would have been the price he’d have to pay to get enough votes in Congress to bomb Syria. The McCains the Grahams of the Senate would have demanded that in order to agree to vote in favor, and such a deal was being worked out when the Russian deal put an end to that.
Now, for those of us who favor non-interference, that is a fortuitous outcome. And maybe having Assad in power is in the best interest of the US (in a realpolitik kind of way). But it was an astute move by Syria and Russia to sacrifice something of little importance (Syrian CWs) for something of much greater importance (ultimate power in Syria, and the upper hand in the civil war).
Don’t forget the big boost to al-Qaeda and their success in carving out some territory for themselves.