On Syria, is Obama treading in Bush's Iraq footsteps?

[n2doc]

Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News


President Barack Obama, sure to fall short of getting explicit U.N. approval for any military strikes against Syrian strongman Bashar Assad’s forces and facing potential divisions inside NATO, has instead been assembling allies and partners in a coalition of the willing that recalls the Iraq War.

And where then-President George W. Bush at least got Congress to authorize him to use force against Saddam Hussein, Obama shows no sign of asking lawmakers to do so, preferring instead to engage in “consultations” with key players.

For a president who defined his 2008 run for the White House with his forceful denunciation of the way Bush led the country into the Iraq war, and then managed the conflict, it’s an unusual turn of events, to say the least.

To be sure, there are major differences: While Russia opposed both interventions, France is this time in Washington’s corner. No major allies have spoken out against the principle of a forceful response to Assad's alleged slaughter of civilians last week with chemical weapons, though NATO ally Germany has signaled that it opposes military action. Obama has pointedly ruled out putting boots on the ground — and repeatedly cited the Iraq War as a cautionary tale of how interventions can spiral out of control.

more

http://news.yahoo.com/on-syria--is-obama-treading-in-bush-s-iraq-footsteps--151321791.html

[pscot]

1. as long as we do it by remote control...

See? No blood on our hands.

[Zorra]

2. I totally hope this is not the case. nt

[JoePhilly]

3. Obama's actual speach on this topic is very different

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99591469

First paragraph ...

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

Later ...

After Sept. 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war.

Then ...

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaida. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

Notice in this last paragraph the factors Obama considers, threat to us, threat to neighbors, ability to contain, duration, aftermath.

Of course Obama does not appear to be contemplating an INVASION of Syria, but hey, why let a little detail like that, or the others from this actual speech on the topic, get in the way.