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
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFrank Rich on the National Circus: Obama Strikes Out on Syria
President Obama reiterated his case for a U.S.-led strike in Syria last night, asking Congress to postpone voting on military intervention while the administration pursues a diplomatic solution. It appears unlikely that the House will approve the use of force. Did Obama really think his speech would swing votes? Or was there another aim?
The last time many of last nights viewers tuned into President Obama en masse, he was imploring the nation in much the same terms and tone to join him in stopping the grotesque slaughter of innocent children. On that occasion Newtown many Americans were in grief and, according to polls, on his side. But we saw the results from his pitch for new gun-control legislation: zero. So lets at least hope that he didnt really think he would swing votes with last nights mishmash of an address. The notion that it (or any speech) would bring around a citizenry and a Congress that are both overwhelmingly opposed to intervention in Syrias civil war is preposterous though no more preposterous than anything else that has happened over the past week. And Obamas brief speech was nothing if not of a piece with what came before. He started with a call for military action, then veered into a prayer for diplomacy before trailing off into an inchoate stay tuned denouement. I guess this proves that if you mate a hawk with a dove, you end up with the rhetorical equivalent of turducken. Id like to believe there was some other aim, but what could it have been? A humanitarian preemption of ABCs The Bachelor? This address should have been put on hold by the White House the moment the attack was put on hold because the urgency of the appeal for force had evaporated. Now, if the Hail Putin Pass proves a Russian-Syrian bluff or some other form of mirage, the president cant give the same speech again, minus the diplomacy part. One prime-time strike to sell the country on air strikes, and youre out.
Obama mentioned the specter of Iraq and Afghanistan several times during his speech, and his entire approach seeking explicit congressional approval and guaranteeing "no boots on the ground" seems to reflect his wariness of those wars. Of course, public opposition to the Syria strike is also colored by the country's experiences over the past ten years. Are we right to see Iraq and Afghanistan in Syria? Or have all of us Obama included overlearned their lessons?
As someone who was so riveted and outraged by the Bush administrations successful propaganda campaign to sell the Iraq War that I wrote a book deconstructing it, I am here to say that there are many differences between the run-up to that disastrous national misadventure and whats going on now. Obama has been clear about these distinctions not just last night but all week. He has assiduously pointed out that he could not honestly claim that Syria represents an imminent threat to America, and much to his credit last night he did not evoke 9/11 on the eve of its anniversary. The evidence of Bashar al-Assads atrocities and his (repeated) use of chemical weapons has not been seriously challenged by anyone and is far more persuasive than Colin Powells notorious display of show-and-tell props before the U.N. Nor has Obama called for regime change, the deployment of troops, or the magical implantation of democracy in Damascus. Indeed, in place of the Bush doctrine, we have another example of whats emerged as the Obama doctrine. The presidents pitch for military action in Syria is consistent with the tactical and moral esthetics he has embraced in drone warfare: the notion that we can have targeted (narrow, limited, calibrated, whatever) or (as John Kerry put it) unbelievably small air strikes that will take out the bad guys and their weapons with no Middle East blowback, no American casualties, and no loss of civilian life. Until there is some or all of the above.
Still, there is one real parallel between recent events and the run-up to Iraq that deserves careful attention: the attempts of the administration and its hawkish fellow travelers, sometimes with press enablement, to oversell the Syrian opposition as a moderate force plausibly able to take on the murderous dictator. We learned last week that a Wall Street Journal op-ed downplaying the role of Al Qaeda and other Islamic extremists among the Syrian freedom fighters was in fact written not by an independent authority but by a contract worker for a Syrian rebel support group. Yet that op-ed had been cited by both Kerry and John McCain as testimony to the presence of a sizable moderate rebel contingent that can serve as Americas proxy in the civil war. Their parroting of a planted opinion piece of murky provenance is exactly the kind of collusion between policy-makers and propagandists that went on when Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress fed a gullible American press fantasies of a good-to-go moderate claque ready to take charge as soon as we knocked out Saddam. This time, some (though not all) of the press is more vigilant: Reuters reported this week that Kerry's public assertions that moderate Syrian opposition groups are growing in influence are at odds with widespread intelligence showing that Islamic extremists remain by far the fiercest and best-organized rebel elements. The Times has fleshed that out with horrific on-the-ground accounts of atrocities committed by some of those elements. Another parallel with Iraq that must be greeted with alarm is the return to cable television of Wolfowitz, Bremer, Lieberman, and all of the other authors of the Iraqi fiasco. Surely weve learned by now that their wisdom is bankrupt, and so is that of those pundit cheerleaders who egged them on a decade ago. (Anyone needing a refresher course on that journalistic rogues gallery should start by reading Andrew Bacevichs just-published Breach of Trust.) We should instead listen to the skeptics on Iraq back then, whether analysts like William Polk or the now-retired general Anthony Zinni, who has noted of limited military action that you cant get a little bit pregnant.
<snip>
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/09/frank-rich-obama-strikes-out-on-syria.html
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)
1 replies, 634 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 (1)
ReplyReply to this post
1 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Frank Rich on the National Circus: Obama Strikes Out on Syria (Original Post)
cali
Sep 2013
OP
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)1. A lot of words to say very little.
You can't do more than one prime time address (who says?)... and O'Bagy.