I have a probably stupid question about Syria.

[Robb]

What's the explanation for why Obama didn't simply order a cruise missile strike at the beginning of this crisis, then come upstairs and tell us about it afterwards, a la the 98 strikes on Afghanistan and Sudan?

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. because he didn't have to perhaps?

I know you are disappointed...

[JI7]

2. not true about the OP

he is being honest in asking

[Robb]

3. No, actually. Merely confused about some presumptions.

There seems to be a popular notion on DU that the President personally wanted to send in some Tomahawks. Clinton launched 74 of them without polling the country, much less Congress.

My question is, if Obama truly wanted to, why did he not? My suggestion is that he did not want to in the first place, but I'm open to additional interpretation.

[onehandle]

10. What the fuck ever. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

15. You bet What the fuck...ever!

[The Straight Story]

4. Target acquisition and analysis takes time

Giving them time to think about it also might get them to start moving things about - which we would be tracking on satellite.

If we didn't have a location for chem weapons and hit them it could cause more problems. Buy time, wait, watch, then strike.

[Robb]

12. I suspect a room full of people would assure the President they have a good target.

You may have forgotten, the factory we targeted in Sudan was supposedly manufacturing VX. No one seemed to have much problem with hitting it.

[The Straight Story]

16. One tiny difference here:

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A senior U.S. intelligence official told CNN on Monday that a soil sample from the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory destroyed last week by U.S. missiles has tested positive for a chemical that is "one step away" from deadly VX nerve gas. "

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/africa/9808/24/bomb.damage/

In Syria the weapons are already assembled and completed.

[Liberal Veteran]

5. I imagine the answers you will get will range across the spectrum of personal biases.

It is a good question, however and one that deserves a better answer than you probably will get.

From my own position, I'd say that he is trying to do the right thing by the US and the Syrians and it is an incredibly delicate balancing act.

[Junkdrawer]

6. Russia. Iran. China. Mostly Russia. n/t

[JI7]

7. because i believe he really does want to do something to prevent chemical attacks

if it was just about his statement of the red line and how he doesn't want to go back on it. what you say would have been the easier thing to do.

there would be some news after he had ordered the strike in response to the chemical attacks that had happened . but by now the news of it would have died down and not been an issue anymore.

[Robb]

13. Exactly. A strike, followed by a serious announcement, followed by a week of talking heads tops.

No one* would be talking about Syria at all had he simply ordered an air strike or six.











* on the teevee.

[onehandle]

8. Russia. This is another proxy war with Russia. nt

[dixiegrrrrl]

17. AND...Russia is a lot more "together" than it was 10 years ago..

Putin doesn't seem like the kind of guy who blinks.

[JI7]

9. the fact he didn't do that is why what a lot of people accuse him of is such crap

[BlueCheese]

11. The US/UK/France were probably planning on doing it last week at the latest.

But suddenly Parliament said no, and everything was reset.