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
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)Per the NY Times--no vote would be tough love for Obama, good for America [View all]
Read what his own advisors are telling the NY Times:
Although Mr. Obama has asserted that he has the authority to order the strike on Syria even if Congress says no, White House aides consider that almost unthinkable. As a practical matter, it would leave him more isolated than ever and seemingly in defiance of the publics will at home. As a political matter, it would almost surely set off an effort in the House to impeach him, which even if it went nowhere could be distracting and draining.
As a result, Mr. Obama would be even more reluctant to order action in the one case that has most preoccupied military planners: the development of a nuclear bomb by Iran. Any operation to take out Iranian nuclear facilities would require a far more extensive commitment of military force than the missile strike envisioned against Syria. Moreover, a rejection of the Syria strike would make Mr. Obama less likely to leave behind a robust force in Afghanistan after combat troops are withdrawn at the end of 2014.
I think this vote determines the future of his foreign policy regardless of whether its a yes vote or a no vote, said Rosa Brooks, a former top Defense Department official under Mr. Obama. If he ekes out a yes vote, hes beholden to the Republicans. But, she added, if he gets a no vote and stands down on Syria, hes permanently weakened and will indeed probably be more inward looking.
As a result, Mr. Obama would be even more reluctant to order action in the one case that has most preoccupied military planners: the development of a nuclear bomb by Iran. Any operation to take out Iranian nuclear facilities would require a far more extensive commitment of military force than the missile strike envisioned against Syria. Moreover, a rejection of the Syria strike would make Mr. Obama less likely to leave behind a robust force in Afghanistan after combat troops are withdrawn at the end of 2014.
I think this vote determines the future of his foreign policy regardless of whether its a yes vote or a no vote, said Rosa Brooks, a former top Defense Department official under Mr. Obama. If he ekes out a yes vote, hes beholden to the Republicans. But, she added, if he gets a no vote and stands down on Syria, hes permanently weakened and will indeed probably be more inward looking.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/world/europe/obama-arrives-in-russia-for-g20-summit.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
So, if Obama loses the Syria vote, he concentrates more on domestic policy, will be locked out of a war with Iran and will dramatically lower our footprint on Afghanistan, plus he won't be "beholden to the Republicans" on foreign policy.
Sounds good to me and, well, virtually everyone who voted for him.
Sometimes leaders get saved from their own failures of judgment by the political process. This is probably such a time.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
62 replies, 12928 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (30)
ReplyReply to this post
62 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Per the NY Times--no vote would be tough love for Obama, good for America [View all]
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
OP
Of course not. half the numbnutz in the House still think Iraq was a swell idea.
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#7
We should be thankful to have a president that understood that unilateral decisions
Baitball Blogger
Sep 2013
#10
That's ridiculous. This belongs in an international court, not in the court of the US deciders
dkf
Sep 2013
#13
International courts are a joke and not an effective argument against military strikes.
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#18
The US cannot be expected to be the sole enforcer of international treaties. That is ridiculous.
dkf
Sep 2013
#21
That's right. We have got to come to terms with the fact that sometimes a bad thing happens in this
totodeinhere
Sep 2013
#42
Or bad things in the rest of the world we can do something about (with positive results)...
deurbano
Sep 2013
#48
If the Geneva Conventions depend on the US illegally bombing other countries
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#16
Oh, please. You're describing Superman, not the US government. No heroes here, pal. n/t
ocpagu
Sep 2013
#58
Yeah, they are desperate asking Obama to save them by striking them with missiles... n/t
ocpagu
Sep 2013
#60
I actually see this as a way out for Obama, he did not jump when the report went out Assad had used
Thinkingabout
Sep 2013
#17
I have been arguing that our official position on Syria's use of chemical weapons should be
geek tragedy
Sep 2013
#29
Maybe "so what" is not the best answer. But spending 200 million on bombing Syria is
rhett o rick
Sep 2013
#35
There is a continuum between bombing someone and callous indifference/nt
DemocratSinceBirth
Sep 2013
#37
Humanitarian aid to the refugees is a good thing. I hope that we can all agree that the world
totodeinhere
Sep 2013
#43
My brother says this is all due to Bush's invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Mellow Drama
Sep 2013
#38