General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe Cameron Trap: Obama’s Lesson from the British Vote
Humiliation is tied to pride. Parliaments anger had a great deal to do with process; as John Cassidy has written, it took a small rebellion on the part of the public to remind the Prime Minister that he couldnt just rush off to war, shouting vague explanations over his shoulder as he went. Camerons government had first approached Parliament with the sense that the decision had been made, that they were there just to approve, that there was no need to wait for the inspectors, just for the Prime Minister to get off the phone with Obama; in his speech to the House of Commons before the vote, Cameron said that hed had to explain to Obama why he had even called them back at all. (He said hed told the President that it was because of the damage done to public confidence by Iraq.)---------
Camerons failure in Parliament makes getting a vote from Congress more necessaryprecisely because it might fail. The British vote removes any plausible claim that the Administration can assume consentthat the proper reaction to the horror in Syria is so obvious, so rooted in norms that one neednt even ask. The grounds in international law for military action are shaky, though. Neither the Arab League nor the Security Council are giving legal cover. Now there is not even an ersatz consensus of allies. That isnt to say that lone, noble stands are never right; but it should preclude a half-thought-out military action with little public support that dodges Americas political processes and institutions.
Cameron, speaking to Parliament, said that bombing Syria wouldnt be about taking sides, or régime change, or even about working more closely with the oppositionjust our response to a war crimenothing else. Neither he nor Obama has explained how to enforce that nothing else clause. Whats the next step, when Assad reacts, and the next after that? Obama, if anything, was more vague in an interview on PBS:
Tailored approaches seems to be the new surgical strikes (the worst euphemisms are those that involve bombs). As for that shot across the bowwhere is it meant to land?
Obama may take the British vote as proof that he cant risk putting himself in Camerons position. But facing Congress after things dont go according to planif there even is a planwould be all the more humiliating. Obama cant win this the way that Cameron lost it: by talking as though he is the only one acting according to principle, and that those who disagree just havent seen enough pictures of the effects of chemical weapons. There are principles at work in wondering whether something that feels satisfying but causes more death and disorder is right, too. The real Cameron trap is thinking that a leader can go to war personally and apolitically, without having a good answer when asked whats supposed to happen after the missiles are fired. Does the President get that?
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/08/british-vote-on-syria-obama-lesson.html
MADem
(135,425 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)Sorry...thought you meant the Intelligence Report. Kerry made it pretty clear that the UN report meant little because he says they can't determine who did the gassing. Meaning that the SigNet Intel Report that was released yesterday pins it on ASSAD..do he kind of fluffed off anything from UN making a difference.
Don't know if it would make a difference with Cameron, either..
MADem
(135,425 posts)I don't know how "skimpy" it is or isn't.
All I know is that the UN Secretary General HIMSELF took the time to brief key government ambassadors on the initial impressions of the inspection team.
The inspection team only left Damascus a few hours ago.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)So...I edited and added to my reply to you above.
MADem
(135,425 posts)The UN could determine who used the weapons--but that's not their charge.
They have said they won't investigate in that fashion and they didn't.
We now decisively know that chemical weapons were used, that much, they have already revealed (just now, a few moments ago, on the wires--no doubt Ban Ki Moon's brief to the key ambassadors revealed this fact earlier, as well).
We also know that the neighborhood where they were used in this latest incident was completely surrounded by Syrian military forces, was subjected to heavy shelling to break windows in the still (no wind) of the night, and this shelling was followed by gas delivered by rockets that the Syrian rebels:
a) Do not have in their arsenals;
b) Were not positioned to deliver (unless they were standing right smack dab in the middle of Maher al-Assad's RG units--and that's a bit unlikely, at best).
It just doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what happened.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)(This sounds like sloppy work by BBC...but, as with Iraq we know that misinformation can be used for propaganda. Do we know that those videos of gassing of children are real? I assume some of them are...but, when the numbers of gassed and dead reported have changed...one does wonder if we are getting verified information. I don't want Obama & Dems caught up in some situation where contradictory information comes out ...AFTER he does his surgical strikes.)
---------
BBC News uses 'Iraq photo to illustrate Syrian massacre'
The BBC is facing criticism after it accidentally used a picture taken in Iraq in 2003 to illustrate the senseless massacre of children in Syria.
Photographer Marco di Lauro said he nearly fell off his chair when he saw the image being used, and said he was astonished at the failure of the corporation to check their sources.
The picture, which was actually taken on March 27, 2003, shows a young Iraqi child jumping over dozens of white body bags containing skeletons found in a desert south of Baghdad.
It was posted on the BBC news website today under the heading Syria massacre in Houla condemned as outrage grows.
The caption states the photograph was provided by an activist and cannot be independently verified, but says it is believed to show the bodies of children in Houla awaiting burial.
A BBC spokesman said the image has now been taken down.
Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9293620/BBC-News-uses-Iraq-photo-to-illustrate-Syrian-massacre.html
MADem
(135,425 posts)And no surprise, the Torygraph--your source--would be eager to slam the "liberal" (to their mind) BBC at every opportunity.
Are you seriously suggesting that an international team of doctors for Medicines sans Frontieres are making shit up?
Also--apparently the UN Team out of Syria IS saying that chemical weapons were used, per the latest reports over the wires--so the suggestion that those kids weren't gassed is just Pootie-esque spin.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Doctors without Borders differed from what Kerry reported. Kerry said he had new information in the SigNet report that more than doubled the numbers of gassed.
I said that we need to be careful to make sure we don't get into this based on info that we know can be sloppy or even not true like "Yellow Cake, Aluminum Tubes and Saddam pulling babies off incubators put out there by some Saudi Princess.
The rush to do something NOW...with Obama going pretty much alone without time to make sure that all info is legit could cause him trouble if info comes out later that shows some exaggeration. That's what I'm saying.
That photo that BBC sloppily put up would certainly lead those who saw it before it was taken down to feel that it was a real photo of mass death of children. There may be other misinfo out there that will take awhile to sort out.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He's sent ships and aircraft, and he's ready to go.
He knows this isn't "yellow cake." Anyone who looks at what happened knows.
All you have to do is look at the videos of the MSF doctors trying to save those people. They aren't "making it up." They can tell you when they were filmed, that they weren't 'staged' in any way. That's not "vials" or "princesses."
Warning--disturbing images:
Medecins Sans Frontieres says hospitals it supports in Syria treated about 3,600 patients with "neurotoxic symptoms", of whom 355 have died.
It said the patients had arrived in three hospitals in the Damascus governorate on 21 August - when opposition activists say chemical attacks were launched against rebels....
This is not the only time chemical weapons have been deployed in Syria--not by a long shot. There have been many other instances where they've been deployed. This was just the most deadly of the attacks. Richard Engel believes this particular attack was retaliatory, owing to an assassination attempt against al-Assad, and I think he might be right on that score:
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/28/20231217-assad-assassination-attempt-may-have-prompted-chemical-weapons-strike?lite
There was to have been another debate but that hax been scrubbed. Cameron made a definitive statement - there will be no military involvement by the UK.
malaise
(275,410 posts)Rec
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)That indicates Obama has a very weak case.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)but sfa else.
JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)What I take from Obama's speeches is not that he assume's Congressional assent, but that he regards it as irrelevant.
He has a legal team drawing up "a legal brief" for him, which sounds awfully familiar. I hope none of them is named Yoo.
He's citing Libya as a precedent, which is a nice trick. "I did it before and got away with it so..."
bahrbearian
(13,466 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)gulliver
(13,303 posts)Cameron's humiliation could actually be good for Obama. The second mouse gets the cheese. I think Obama will seek Congressional consultation if not outright approval. Then, whether he decides to strike Assad or not, he will be successful.