Juxtaposition of Israeli action and U.S. inaction on Syria puts more pressure on Obama

[azurnoir]

The widespread American backing for the reported Israel Air Force bombings of Syrian targets has three central elements: 1. Deep support for Israel and understanding of its motives 2. Revulsion with President Bashar Assad and a feeling that he had it coming and 3. A certain delight, at least among President Obama’s foes, with the new opportunity to highlight what they perceive as his shameful inaction.

After all, while Obama examines, verifies, calculates and ponders the appropriate U.S. reaction to Assad’s reported use of chemical weapons, Israel is showing the kind of resolute decisiveness that his critics say the president so sorely lacks. “While Obama dithers – Israel acts,” was one such disparaging column published Sunday.

.........................

U.S. public opinion, after all, is far from convinced that the U.S. should lend a helping hand to the Syrian rebels and is only slightly more favorable towards a military effort against Assad’s chemical arsenal. Even the most hawkish of Republican lawmakers are wary of a hasty decision to arm the rebels, lest “we replace one terrible dictator with a terrible ideological movement which is aimed at our destruction” as New York Congressman Peter King said Sunday. And everyone, but everyone, agrees that there should be no American “boots on the ground”, under almost any circumstances.

Americans are tired of the toll taken by Iraq and Afghanistan – 11 soldiers were killed over the last weekend alone – and are widely aware of the crippling economic burden that these two wars have placed on the U.S. economy for many years to come. Obama knows full well that public support for a campaign in Syria is limited - and that the same people who are now egging him on will be the first to blast him when things go wrong.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/juxtaposition-of-israeli-action-and-u-s-inaction-on-syria-puts-more-pressure-on-obama.premium-1.519370

[leveymg]

1. The dilemma is caused not by insufficient US involvement, but by excessive zeal in Regime Change

when the US initially involved itself in arming and assisting the Syrian opposition and its foreign backers. But, it became clear last year that Syria indeed isn't Libya, and things went sour last Fall.

Obama did a good job of recovering. It looked like Obama had a chance for a fresh start when the major advocates of regime change left the Administration a few months ago. But, we now seem to have been leveraged back into a corner by Israel and less publicly by the Saudis.

Obama's being given no options other than to show Netanyahu and the Saudis who is really in charge of US foreign policy, or to commit to the even greater sacrifices that will attend to deeper US role in a wider regional war. I sincerely hope he chooses wisely.

[bemildred]

2. Yes. Much to sanguine about the consequences of all this destabilization of people we don't like,

and supporting violence as a policy tool. They always think they are going to control it, and they are always wrong.