After some shouting, Syria resolution will eventually pass comfortably, IMO

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Mon Sep 2, 2013, 12:37 PM - Edit history (6)

This is offered as political analysis, not as policy recommendation. I am not commenting here on what Congress *should* or should not do.

There will be the expected harrumphing and some minor amendment but at the end of the day Congress will pass it because it is too (politically) dangerous not to.

There are built-in reasons that the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed almost unanimously in 1964, why Kerry and Biden voted for the Iraq War, and such. (Hell, George McGovern voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution) For a congress person the political risk is almost all on the side of blocking force and thereby taking political ownership of whatever terrible thing happens next. If, however, a congress-approved war policy goes bad it will be the President's fault. Presidents carry the blame for wars.

No matter what anybody does, something horrible will happen in Syria time after time in the future. And American TV will start covering it because it is not an American political story.

If Republicans block Obama doing something or another they risk owning whatever Assad does going forward, which isn't going to be pretty in any scenario.

On the other hand, Republicans supporting Obama, even in a futile and unwise gesture would be seen as, at worst, bipartisan and patriotic team-players. It will still be "Obama's war."

House Republicans will gnaw at the thing for a while, a few baggers will make names for themselves, but most republicans will end up passing a resolution in favor of military action.

IMO.

[NYC_SKP]

1. If true, then a perfect and poetic response by Obama would be to back off....

...and find a non-militaristic solution, maybe diplomatic agreements, inspections, sanctions, and/or violence-free confiscation of chemical arms, etc.

[morningfog]

4. That doesn't make sense, though. He is spending his political capital, lobbying like hell

to get this war. He wants it.

[Erose999]

10. He already said he would authorize a strike regardless of how Congress votes.

[Barack_America]

2. Assad is practically begging them to with his "retreat" comments.

Someone stupid enough to mock American military restraint when there are at least six warships within striking distance is someone stupid enough to gas his own people, IMO.

I'm sure Russia, Iran and China are just thrilled with his idiocy.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. "He said 'nyah-nyah-nyah' to us!" would be an insipid, revolting reason to go to war.

[CakeGrrl]

3. We'll see. I honestly don't know which way they'll go.

The RW contempt for this President can't be overstated.

They have obstructed him at EVERY turn in a way I've not seen before - including Clinton.

They don't have a single care, IMO, to be seen as being bipartisan with this President.

All that by way of saying I don't know what it will take to get them to vote in a way that's seen as remotely supportive of what President Obama appears to want. I couldn't say if even this will be enough.

But we'll see.

[BlueJazz]

5. I think it's a great idea. As long as we have the things like health care for all our citizens....

,...education for our populace and our fine roads and supporting structures in great shape, why not spend the money ?
A country as rich and debt-free as ours should rush head-first into every skirmish in the world. Right on !!

[HardTimes99]

6. Despite 90% opposition from the American public???? - nt

[cthulu2016]

9. There isn't anything close to 90% opposition today

[morningfog]

11. Not since they have been tirelessly catapulting the propaganda.

[MannyGoldstein]

7. The Republicans will come 'round and support the President?

Well, I guess they did it for his three free trade agreements and financial deregulation, so it's possible... But I tend to doubt it. We'll see.

[Erose999]

8. It will pass with a good margin of both parties, but the Rethugs who vote against intervention can

wear that vote like a badge of honor in 2014 and 2016 when we're bogged down in another un-winnable war. That sleazy fucker Rand Paul will have an "I told you so" speech at the 2016 RNC convention.

Even the GOOP who vote for the war can campaign against it, and pin it on Obama. As the Dems who voted for the war in Iraq campaigned against it and pinned it on Bush and the GOOP.

PNAC and Halliburton will get their war and the Dems will get a decade in the wilderness.

[morningfog]

12. Hopefully some good Dems will vote against it, speak out against it and be able to run

on the same in 2016.

[HooptieWagon]

13. I think its 50/50.

Of course the MIC lobbyists will be in turbo-charged overdrive. But very strong public sentiment against. Perhaps the tipping point will be that Obama has ZERO international support... except from Saudi Arabia-LOL. Not even Poland or the Marshall Islands. Not even a Congess fattened up on MIC bribes wants to vote to become a rogue nation.

[cthulu2016]

19. Weak, yes, but near-zero is a bit strong

The whole reason this thing is going to congress is a lack of international support, to be sure, but we seem to have France, NATO ally Turkey, and the majority of the Arab League as being somewhat supportive. And Cameron's government in the UK would probably join a UN vote, safe in the knowledge that a Russian veto would make it only a symbolic vote.

No disagreeing with you in a big way, just refining the observation.

[HooptieWagon]

20. Turkey and Saudi Arabia are supporting the rebels....

so of course they want US to strike Assad. And don't be so quick to count on France....they appear to be back-pedalling. Obama is virtually alone in this....which is why Congress will be hesitant.

[gopiscrap]

14. I'm not sure about that

[alcibiades_mystery]

15. I've seen every single possible worst case scenario spelled out here

I am against military intervention in Syria, largely because I think it will be ineffective in Syria where it really maters, even though I think any intervention will at least signal that chemical weapons usage is wrong and results in serious consequences, a necessary point to make.

But I'm still amazed at the popularity of these "worst case" predictions.

So here's a best case: very limited airstrikes or missile strikes shut down Syria's capacity to use chemical weapons on civilians in the war zones.

This is a bad thing? Let's say, instead of the million and one imagined bad results, this particular good result happens.

[TM99]

16. You obviously know absolutely nothing about chemical weapons.

So here's a best case: very limited airstrikes or missile strikes shut down Syria's capacity to use chemical weapons on civilians in the war zones.

What are the targets for this limited airstrike that will render them unusable? A factory? Wow that's a really bad choice. A munitions dump? Wow, that's an ever worse choice of a target. Maybe a particular unit? One week has gone by, two more could follow waiting for Congress, and you don't think that maybe the weapons will have been moved? That is of course assuming that it was Assad and not the rebels who used chemical weapons.

Chemical weapons are highly mobile and rather easy to hide. Your 'best case scenario' is ludicrous. That is why those of us who actually understand and know how the military works realize that a 'punishment' strike is nothing more than an aggressive act of war, that throwing a few missiles at a few military targets will do nothing to stop future chemical attacks but will cause large amounts of collateral damage, and that without a specific military objective (which in this case would require regime change & boots on the ground to accomplish it), this 'proposal' is either a camel nose into a full scale invasion or is bellicose NeoCon posturing.

Both conclusions show us as American citizens that our government can not be trusted, neither Republican or Democratic, when it comes to the lies, manipulation, profit motives, and hypocrisy since the War on Terror began in earnest a decade ago. There have been no 'best case scenarios' since before 9/11. Iraq was and remains a clusterfuck. Afghanistan is and will remain a clusterfuck. Libya is and continues to be a clusterfuck. Syria, Iran, Saudia Arabia, etc. are all clusterfucks. We have sectarian violence, religious violence, political violence among various populations that have been fueled by Western empirical interests for nearly over a hundred years. We are way past the 'best case scenarios' for any intervention in any of these countries of the Middle East.

[HooptieWagon]

23. Spot on.

And nothing will produce further defiance from Assad than an ineffective and futile symbolic gesture. And when Obama's missles inflict more civilian casualties, he will lose what little credibility he has left.

[Douglas Carpenter]

17. I expect to see the same pattern we saw in the Amash/Conyers NSA Surveillance Bill

More Republicans than Democrats will vote in favor of supporting military action - in spite of every effort to stick it to the Obama Administration by the Republicans with berating comments - The GOP is after all both more the war party and the surveillance party than the Democrats -

[Le Taz Hot]

18. Obama would never have agreed to go to Congress

had he not already known he has the votes. This is all Kabuki Theater, boys and girls.

[cthulu2016]

22. Or unless he knew it was win-win

If the Republicans block him it will be a political mistake for them, for reasons discussed in the OP, so it may be a win-win scenario from his veiwpoint

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. Assad has expressed zero expansionist tendencies.

For the GOP to block the President is looking rather attractive to them since Cameron got slapped around with no public backlash for Parliament.

"Anything bad Assad does the GOP will own" is a poor assessment of the GOPs liabilities.

Apart from serving as a freight depot to Iraq during the US occupation and to Hezzbollah in general there is no reason for anyone to think Assad will do anything outside his own borders. And since the devils afflicting him today are the same ones he stoked in Iraq he's taking his lumps.

However, if the AQ insurgents gain hold of the chemical weapons after Obama's ridiculous war aids them then the blame will fall squarely on Obama and anyone clinging to his legacy.

This is a war of ego and cheap politics and it's disgusting.

[gulliver]

21. One big downside is that it may hurt Rand Paul

We need him in the Republican presidential primaries. Unfortunately, he's going to have to vote against a resolution to punish Syria. His numbskull admirers will even be disappointed if he doesn't filibuster again.