General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPresident Obama has my full support for his diplomacy with Iran - I didn't give him credit for Syria
____________________________
. . . because he and SoS Kerry mouthed so much of the rhetoric that the previous administration used to justify their own autocratic approval of the use of military force abroad.
President Obama has proven to me, with Syria, that he's willing and capable of following through on his diplomatic initiatives and isn't using the State dept. as a mere PR tool to initiate military action.
It would be easy to be cynical about this tenuous 'deal' that's looming with Iran. It could be understandable to doubt that Iran has any intention of following through on promises to bring their nuclear ambitions in line with 'international norms' - making whatever they agree to just a welcome invitation for hawks to point to this deal as a last straw in diplomacy with them. Indeed, if Iran doesn't follow through, this agreement could become a pretext for some to proceed to war with Iran.
However, I think President Obama deserves the benefit of our acknowledging his current success (so far) in persuading Syria to reveal and destroy their chemical weapons arsenals. That efforts stands, without a doubt, alongside not more than a handful of diplomatic initiatives which our country has managed to a successful and peaceful end.
Again, it still remains to be seen whether the Syrian initiative is completed to our government's satisfaction, but it's a rare example of a presidential conviction to exhaust all peaceful means to a confrontation or conflict with other nations. That's not an easy or assured course to choose and adhere to for a U.S. president- at least, we don't have a great many examples in our recent history; including this president's.
For that, President Obama gets my support for his Iran initiative . . . he can rest easy now.
Newsweek ?@Newsweek 23m
WhiteHouse releases pics of Oval Office mtgs leading up to nuclear deal with Iran (via http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse
) pic.twitter.com/xE7qBJWe60
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)But there have been times when the chatter from the WH has left me unsettled.
It has taken me some for me to realize that the rhetoric, and posturing with regards to major events (and RW involvements) rarely ends up on the same track as the negotiated end game. There is a constant sleight of hand going on, and the actual outcome is rarely a parallel to the early chatter. How many more times does this have to happen before it becomes more apparent to the masses? But more scary, how many more time does Obama employ this MO before the RW catch on and it's no longer effective? How many times will they be publicly proven short sighted and stupid? "Sly as a fox" is an oldie but a goodie.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)They weren't making shit up to go to war--anyone who thought they saw that tactic reappear was using simplistic child-like thinking. "This happened last time, so it's happening again! I recognize patterns, yay!!"
bigtree
(85,915 posts). . . pointing to silly things like unilateral declarations of non-existent threats to declare Executive authority to initiate war without prior congressional approval.
So simple, a child could see the folly in it.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)was Obama's red line--turning a blind eye would take us all down a bad road. And he sought Congressional approval. Obama isn't Bush/Cheney, he didn't suddenly morph into them, he wasn't inventing shit to go to war...and every case where military action might be necessary must be viewed individually instead of fitted into a previous box, but that takes extra thought and analysis instead of mental laziness.
bigtree
(85,915 posts). . . his interpretation of a threat didn't measure up. For instance, there's no provision allowing unilateral Executive initiation of military force for a future threat. I think the chemical weapons treaty they referenced intended that the world community would play a role in determining whether military force would be used.
I recall that Congress was dead set against the President's initiative to approve military force; not withstanding his continuing insistence that he has the authority to initiate military action against Syria, no matter what they ultimately decide.
Anyway, I give him credit for sticking with his diplomacy. I'd point to the fact that military force might not have produced anything outside of a wider war in Syria. Evidence at hand points to diplomacy with Russia which was instrumental in bringing about this agreement. The verdict on the effect of the threat of military force is anecdotal, at best.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)supposed to be unilateral. Remember that England backed out, Germany wanted no part, France was the only country willing to join the US in possible strikes. There was no question that the weapons were used, by that point, the UN had been looking into it--it was a matter of, what do we all do now to respond? The answer was, prepare to take military action (not bluffing) unless a diplomatic solution can be found, and that's what happened. But if Obama had really, really wanted to launch strikes and/or start another war--completely out of character for the man who won the Presidency being opposed to the bogus Iraq war--he would have done it. But he didn't. That's why any Iraq comparison is ridiculous.
bigtree
(85,915 posts). . . absent an imminent or credible threat.
Declarations of autocratic authority to initiate military action abroad is just part of what's wrong with our nation's military posture. It's not just a simple matter of comparing his declaration to what Bush ultimately did in Iraq. A slippery slope is just that; it's a series of actions which commit a nation to war which should have a more accountable check than a letter to Congress afterward.
Iraq provides a clear example, though, in demonstrating Congress's difficulty and often inability to collectively, ultimately resist funding unilateral Executive deployments of troops and weaponry behind these slippery declarations of a 'threat' and defense of our national security.
Just relying on 'character' to conclude that Pres. Obama was above choosing military action would ignore his escalation of the Afghanistan deployment and the resulting casualty and carnage which followed that decision; a staggeringly higher number killed in action and as a result of that action than even Bush orchestrated.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)but I really think the lead up to Syria was planned and staged, and it worked. I really think the president used the world's perception of us as a "shoot first, ask questions later" country to his advantage. Regardless, Syria got done, and now Iran is getting done. The fresh smell of diplomacy is a welcome change.
bigtree
(85,915 posts). . . agree.