Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Obama’s in a Jam on Syria. Military Analysis [View all]
He has feeble international support, and he doesnt know what hes trying to accomplish.
President Obama is in a huge jam on Syria, and its not clear how he gets out of it. The problem is twofold. First, he is preparing to take military action against Syria for the sole purpose of enforcing international law. Yet he has very little support from the organizationsor many members of those organizationsthat are charged with enforcing international law. If the point of the intervention is to uphold the civilized worlds long-held norms (in this case, norms against the use of chemical weapons), and if he cant persuade more than a couple other countries to go along, then he doesnt have a very potent case.
This is not a technical-legal question. Its central to the strategy and effectiveness of whatever sort of military action he might decide to launch. In his Aug. 28 PBS interview, Obama said that an attack, if he launched one, needed to send a pretty strong signal that Bashar al-Assads regime had better not do it againi.e., had better not launch any more chemical weapons. And yet if Assad doesnt see the world closing in on him, if he sees the attack as purely an American (or Western) campaign, against which he can mobilize the usual anti-American (or anti-Western) actors, then the signal is going to be pretty weak.
It must have come as a shock when the British Parliament voted down a motion to authorize military action, especially after Prime Minister David Cameron promised Obama that he would join an international coalition to punish Assad for his monstrous acts. Cameron may have thought the motion was a slam dunk. Not since 1782 has a British leader lost a war resolution (the last time was when Parliament decided, against the Kings urgings, to withdraw from the American Colonies). Its unclear whether this defeat reflects Camerons weakness or Britains abdication of a role in global politics. But its clear in retrospect that Obama should have lined up his ducks before letting his top aides all but announce that the cruise missiles were on their way.
<snip>
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2013/08/obama_s_syria_crisis_he_and_john_kerry_need_a_better_plan_for_dealing_with.html
24 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I think that the whole debate of what "should be done" is rather hopeless at this point.
redgreenandblue
Aug 2013
#2