Obama’s in a Jam on Syria. Military Analysis

[cali]

He has feeble international support, and he doesn’t know what he’s trying to accomplish.



President Obama is in a huge jam on Syria, and it’s 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 organizations—or many members of those organizations—that are charged with enforcing international law. If the point of the intervention is to uphold the civilized world’s long-held norms (in this case, norms against the use of chemical weapons), and if he can’t persuade more than a couple other countries to go along, then he doesn’t have a very potent case.

This is not a technical-legal question. It’s 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-Assad’s regime “had better not do it again”—i.e., had better not launch any more chemical weapons. And yet if Assad doesn’t 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 King’s urgings, to withdraw from the American Colonies). It’s unclear whether this defeat reflects Cameron’s weakness or Britain’s abdication of a role in global politics. But it’s 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

[LuvNewcastle]

1. Obama needs to back off but I don't suspect he will.

The French will back out, too, when the people return from their vacations and get acclimated to what's going on. In any case, nothing should be done until Congress votes on the matter. If he does this without approval, people will really be screaming for impeachment, and they'll have a right to do so.

[cali]

3. I don't think the French will back out.

I still believe that any military action will occur in the very near future. The longer it doesn't happen, the more opposition builds.

[LuvNewcastle]

5. If it happens as you say, I hope everyone is ready to see

the GOP take over Congress next year. After that, impeachment hearings will begin. They'll go in for the kill at that point.

More importantly, though, this could be the beginning of a major conflict. My brother, who's all set for retirement from the military, told me yesterday that it looks like he's going to be deployed next year. Lots of brothers, fathers, mothers, children will be caught up in this thing if it explodes. It's ludicrous to think we're going to send a "shot across the bow" and turn around and go home.

[cali]

7. well, it surely will give impeachment proponents a boost

I don't know that they'll actually get to introducing articles. As far as Congress goes, I can't see military action being good for dems.

I agree that the possible ramifications are dire.

[arely staircase]

12. impeachment. for what?

[cali]

16. Uh, you should be asking that of LuvNewcastle, not of me.

I'm not the one who brought it up.

[LuvNewcastle]

20. Yes, I brought it up.

The Republicans have been dying for a reason to impeach him, and if Obama does this without the approval of Congress, that might be enough for them to start talking about it seriously. If this action in Syria turns into a war or an extended conflict, they just might have the public behind them, too. This is a risky mission, in more ways than one.

[arely staircase]

22. oh good god

there are lots of reasons to oppose us intervention in Syria, fear of impeachment doesn't even make the list.

[LuvNewcastle]

23. Did I say it was the most important reason?

I just said it was a risk. No, the most important reason is the deaths that could result from it and the possibility of our deeper involvement in Syria.

[arely staircase]

24. it isn't even a reason. nt

[redgreenandblue]

2. I think that the whole debate of what "should be done" is rather hopeless at this point.

The ship is already sinking. The time to "do something" was two years ago, when the Arab spring was in its infancy.

What could have been done is to take an even-handed approach to the whole situation, putting diplomacy at the forefront and declaring the reduction of human suffering the primary goal, secondary to the political outcomes.

After it was clear that Libya was the model that the West would pursue, China and Russia stonewalled. It all went to shit from there.

Basically, the possibility of a negotiated settlement of the Syrian conflict, with perhaps a form of partitioning of the country, was sacrificed on the altar of "regime change or nothing".

The answer to "what can be done" at this point likely is: Not much.

In order to restore credibility, what the US could have done recently is condemn the violence in Egypt.

[cali]

4. I agree.

I think that sums it up pretty neatly.

[Downwinder]

6. People have been trying to bring Peace to the Middle East

since prehistoric times. Nobody has been successful. Even someone who purportedly could "walk on water" could not do it. So we think we can do better? What are our chances?

[joshcryer]

8. Obama can back out so trivially it is a joke.

I've said it so many times. He can even play it perfectly given Putin's lame denial.

"It appears that Russia does not believe chemical weapon use in Syria has crossed a 'red line.' Since I will not attack Syria without a UN resolution, I will simply wait until Russia's moral compass is realized."

Pow. Two birds. Russia gets the blame for anything going forward. The "red line" rhetoric is fulfilled.

[Vinnie From Indy]

14. In some respect, I agree with much of this.

I think Obama should try and maneuver to place Russia and China as the villains on the world stage on the Syria issue. He absolutely should let Congress vote on any attack and either make the GOP the villains or make them share the responsibility of any attack. He will still always have the option of a unilateral attack if he feels the need is great enough to stain his legacy for the historical record.

[malaise]

18. That simple

Obama should consult Jimmy Carter - probably the only sane man in America re international law

[arely staircase]

9. Libyan bombing alone will not budge Gaddafi, UK officials warn

Libyan bombing alone will not budge Gaddafi, UK officials warn

Source: The Guardian

Almost three months into the campaign of air strikes, Britain and its Nato allies no longer believe bombing alone will end the conflict in Libya, well-placed government officials have told the Guardian.

Instead, they are pinning their hopes on the defection of Muammar Gaddafi's closest aides, or the Libyan leader's agreement to flee the country.

"No one is envisaging a military victory," said one senior official who echoed Tuesday's warnings by Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, head of the navy, that the bombing cannot continue much beyond the summer.

Stanhope, whose comments caused fury in Downing Street, was expressing publicly what many senior defence officials say in private, officials made clear.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/14/libyan-bomb...

[cali]

11. Libya was a multi national effort with the goal of ousting Qaddafi

It involved 17 countries and aircraft enforcing a no fly zone.

That is a very different scenario from that the President has proposed. You get that, right?

[Junkdrawer]

15. Give it time....

These things must be done deelllicately or you hurt the spell....

[Lee-Lee]

10. To make it worse

After weeks of blustering talk, do you think any of those "prime targets" haven't been relocated?

I bet any intelligence or command center the Syrians use has been deserted by now.

He is going to fire millions of dollars worth or hardware that the MIC will make even more replacing at empty buildings so he can save face over his "red line".

[JaneyVee]

13. Should wait for UN inspectors evidence.

[cali]

17. The U.N. has made it clear that their finding will not

include who perpetrated the attack.

In any case, that's contrary to what Kerry said yesterday.

[JaneyVee]

19. Bombs were lobbed from regime strong holds only into rebel strong holds only.

[cali]

21. sorry, you aren't a U.N. representative or an expert and you feel

no compunction to link any of your claims to fact.

continue on with your hawkish cries about "taking out governments". It's what you do.