Here’s one: don’t give the FSA arms. If you don’t arm the FSA, you don’t arm the Islamists, right?
Seriously, haven’t they learned anything from the Fast and Furious scandal?
That’s precisely the message I was trying to get across in my post. He made an error in judgement but one he walked back cleverly without additionally making bigger and bigger mistakes along the way in order to cover up for the original one.
Exactly what harm has been done by the president that isn’t being manufactured out of baseless manufactured outrage and bold faced dislike of the man just for waking up every morning… OP??
Come on. Did you see the post you were responding to? It specifically was about “legal repercussions”:
Emphasis added.
There wouldn’t be any legal repercussions. Period.
Define Obama’s Syria Policy that fell apart. And once defined let’s see some specifics as to what caused the policy to fall apart.
The article is not doing that. It’s not about being “responsible for a conflict”. It’s about having an influence and/or leverage in the region, now and in the future. If you think that’s useless and US should not have that, then go ahead and ignore the article.
USA used to have influence in the region - even if it was more fear than respect, but there was some respect, too. Now, under Obama, it has completely lost any influence on Egypt, Libya is a lawless state that US has no influence in, Syria - see the article, Saudi Arabia is pissed off, and even US influence in Israel is greatly diminished.
Basically, under Obama, more than under previous presidents, it has been shown that United States makes a really bad ally. And, with the Syrian and Egyptian situation, Russia’s influence in the region has been greatly increased.
Good job, Obama.
Do you agree that because when Obama made the Red Line comment during a political campaign against the Republican opponent who said he would consider sending in ground troops to secure Syria’s CW arsenal., it means that as a matter of political reality to the voting public Obama was the least brash on the CW/Syria matter than Romney was at that time. It did not seem all that hawkish at that time also and was barely noticed in the election campaign.
The red line comment then became an effective tool for Republican-turned-isolationist attacks on Obama that congealed politically with Democratic Party members leaning isolationist on this matter too. Lest we forget that the entire Republican House leadership backed Obama on military strikes on Syria. And in the Senate there was the usual McCain/Graham contingent that is ready to bomb bomb bomb most any bad guy in any part of the world at any time backing Obama too.
The hot snippet news media like Politico of course seized on the Red Line meat and ran with the hound dogs barking at it. There was not careful thoughtful analysis of it as the whole thing unfolded. Then Putin was forced by the threat of strikes to convince Assad its time to give up the un-officially possessed arsenal of CW that are now in the process of being destroyed.
So, it’s Russia’s problem now. That sounds okay to me. Plus, if history is our guide, everyone will be hating Russia in about 5 years as their reward for trying to help.
That “trying to help” bit is funny. The “trying to help” line of thinking is Carter-style naivete that usually leads to disastrous results in international politics. At least Obama cannot be accused of that kind of motivation.
Do you recall that Republican leaders in the Republican controlled House of Representatives including Speaker Boehner and Eric Cantor came out in support of Obama’s military strikes on Syria. That is what could have caused Putin to shit his pants and decide to convince Assad to give up the CW weapons.
I am not saying it is what cause Putin to change policy but it may have had an effect.
It is quite possible that Obama if he didn’t get a Resolution to limited bombing of Syria would not have been impeached because it has to start in the House. The top Republicans were for the bombing. And in a few days the bombing would be over and Republicans would have been busy voting to repeal Obama-Care…
What did this have to do with the campaign? It was a news conference in Stockholm where the now famous “red line” comment was drawn. That was August 2012.
Then, in April of 2013 (please don’t tell us this was “during a political campaign”), the WH sends a letter to Senators McCain and Levin
I am not an American so I don’t have any allegiance here but could the OP explain how it’s honest to say the US has zero influence but some different strategy could have succeeded?
Eta: my thought about Obama’s request to congress was that it was always a bluff. One that worked wrt chemical weapons and staying the hell out of another mildest combat excursion.
Now US has close to zero influence in Syria. At the time when some different strategy could have succeeded (if US actually could decide what it wanted in the region) there was still some influence. As the article details.
Yes, and there were almost no arming done. What support was given amounted to little but symbolic gestures and non-lethal material. So they were pressured by the Saudis to do something, and they said they would send in some light arms. Which very surprisingly were held up due to “pipelines, ” as the article writes. Yeah right. Everybody and his grandmother know full well that the USA could have delivered those weapons on the ground in 24 hours if it really wanted. It didn’t. Probably they had learned from previous scandals of weapons landing in the wrong hands.
I doubt how much influence the USA ever had. Just enough to keep a useless old decrepit man on the Egyptian throne for some time, not enough to prevent the terror attacks of 9/11, not enough to rein in the Golf states obvious in-you-face financing of terror all over the globe, and not enough to steer you out of four wars in three decades. But if influence is the name of the game, then you should switch sides immediately. You’ll never get any leverage over Islamists, however Assad will give you his wife and daughters if you help him defeat the “rebels.”
In any case if I was American I’d consider if even what influence it has is worth the cost of maintaining it. What did you get for your trillions of dollars and tens of thousands of dead and wounded US men of the Iraq war that has made life so much better for American citizens?
And the article still doesn’t give any suggestions to what Obama could have done that would have altered the situation drastically. Probably because the author knows perfectly well that only a full scale invasion could have done anything about it. And he’s not dumb enough to support that. At least publicly.
Yes. He steered you out of a war in a very difficult situation. Which it seems is something of an accomplishment for a US president. But why don’t you say what he ought to have done that would have altered the situation in a major way (and not just some details with having used the wrong words, or something equally insignificant)
The USA had designated Assad as a member of the Axis of Evil. After that there is no influence left. The Saudis, Kuwaitis, Qatari, etc. were funding and arming Islamists to the tune of billions of dollars long before the USA had contemplated intervening. That’s not influence. When an “ally” does the exact opposite of what is in your interest, then that the opposite of influence. Your “ally” Iraq has tacitly (and sometimes not so tacitly) sided with Assad whom you have listed as enemy. That’s not influence. The Turks (Erdogan was until recently best buddies with Assad, all the while the USA had him listed as official evil) have repeatedly snubbed your requests while allowing its country to be turned into a staging area for the international Islamists movement into Syria. That’s not influence. The Iranians? No influence. The population of the regions generally hates your guts. That’s not influence. The parts within the so-called FSA the USA might have had some influence over were never more than figureheads being paraded around Qatar.
The article touched on some of his mistakes, although you are probably correct that nothing could have altered the situation significantly. Obama’s best bet would have been to stop doing things that made him (and by extension, the US) weak and silly. Like not drawing a red line he couldn’t enforce, arming the rebels in a half-hearted way, saying Assad had to go without the will or ability to bring it about, and so forth. He got lucky, in a way, that Putin came up with a deal (although that seems to be stalled at the first gate), but his major flaws were acting as if there were things he was going to do when it became apparent that he was going to be acting almost alone, and then backing down.
Not much he could do to make things better, but it would have been nice if he didn’t make himself and the US look worse.
Regards,
Shodan
Yes. He has clearly made some errors along the way. It’s in the Nation Leadership Manual for Dummies that you shouldn’t make threats you are unwilling or unable to back up. So some stupidity there no doubt. I just think you quite naturally have a tendency to overstate the consequence of those on the international scene. At least around here the US involvement in Syria and the various speeches of Obama and US officials are seldom even reported on. It’s just not that important. Few people outside the USA give a damn about the Red Line speech or have even heard of it. You are kicking yourself needlessly. But go ahead if you enjoy the pain.
When was that?
By making the choice to not get involved in a pointless war, I think he made himself and the US look better. As I’ve said, I’m grateful for that last decision, even if he bungled some of the stuff along the way. Avoiding pointless wars is a low bar, perhaps, but it’s a low bar that his predecessor failed to meet, and that his rivals seem to threaten to fail as well.
Just going back and reviewing some days old posts. Apparently Shodan (01-02-2014 05:07 PM) believes this somehow means that I’m saying the civil war started because Assad had chemical weapons.
I wrote, {“Had Putin led Assad three years ago to destroy the CW the chance of being used in the civil war would have been reduced if not eliminated.”}
How does one respond to such far flung interpretations of what is written?
Few people inside the USA also give a damn about the Red Line speech.
I guess the SDMB has its fair share of the “blame America first” crowd that just wants to find fault with this administration.