A week earlier and they probably didn't have all the intelligence in yet.
I disagree completely, I think it makes him very aware of the minefield which is the Middle East and it's him getting his ducks in a row before engaging in an attack which could have many different outcomes as a result.
It very well could be. It doesn't change the fact I think it's the right thing to do, as president of the country.
He should not be embarrassed for consulting Congress for approval of a strike in a country which used chemical agents to murder over 1,000 people in the middle of a brutal civil war which has escalated into a regional war. That very sentence alone should suggest to you how difficult of a situation this is. I see no reason why he should be embarrassed for consulting Congress. Like I said, it's not like Obama was told he had to, he chose to.
I mean why should he be embarrassed over something his chose to do when he didn't really have to?
First of all, if you're choosing to take the rhetoric of Assad as having any significance, I'd suggest you stop and just think about that for a second. My guess is that many people who claim to be our enemies over the years have said similar things.That Congressional authorization would give the President the kind of legitimacy that is only possible through such authorization is not up for question. The tactical approach was awkward, to say the least. The President had two major approaches that were possible with respect to the timing of his request for Congressional authorization and three major options overall if he wanted to pursue a military response:
1. All but decide a course of action and then seek authorization (that's the approach that was chosen): The problem is that such a tactical approach would be seen as hesitation. In the wake of very real hesitation on Egypt, the risk was especially high that such a course would create unfavorable perceptions. It did. The Assad dictatorship has already portrayed the action as an "historic retreat" by the U.S.
I still don't see where the embarrassment would be. This is the option he chose and regardless of how Congress acts, Obama would have no reason to be embarrassed. Might he be frustrated? Yes. Might he dislike the decision? Yes. But the fact of the matter is Syria intervention is an incredibly difficult decision, no matter what happens. There is no "right" answer and absent a clear "right" answer, it's hard to see why the President should be embarrassed by anything Congress decides.The anti-Assad movement, eager for the U.S. to take on the kind of risks it won't take on its own with respect to strategic Syrian military targets, has minimized the support the U.S. has been providing. Domestic ideological opponents have exploited the situation as yet another opportunity to try to score ideological points. There is real risk that the President's ability to argue that a military response is legitimate would be badly undercut if the Congress fails to approve the authorization (probably not the most likely scenario) or a strong minority of either House rejects authorization.
I'm sorry, I do not understand this thinking. I understand your position, I simply do not understand why it would be any different.2. Ask for authorization before deciding the final course: That would have required discipline to avoid the temptation "to do something" in the face of the chemical weapons attack. However, were the Congress to authorize a military response, one would not be dealing with the criticism currently being applied to the approach that was taken, much less the damaging perceptions that it created. Were Congress to refuse to authorize a military response, the President would not suffer the kind of PR setback as would happen were Congress to refuse his current request for authorization.
I disagree completely. During a crises, one does not need a "strong" response, one needs a careful, calculated and considered response. Simply choosing a course of action and sticking with it will lead to disaster more often than it will lead to success. It's not like we have missles hurdling towards the US right now, we don't HAVE to take an action five minutes ago. We SHOULD be discussing and deliberating, we should be making sure all of our intelligence is confirmed and we should be making sure we are committed to this action.3. Undertake military action as is the President's authority under the War Powers Act and then inform Congress: Some in Congress would make the perennial argument that the President overstepped his "constitutional authority." As has been the case with past limited military responses, such arguments would not carry the day.
During a crisis, one needs a strong response. Commitments made are commitments that need to be acted upon. Ambiguity or uncertainy is not helpful.
People are far too worried about what they think others think other leaders think. Assad "exploited" it, but he's the man who just murdered 1400 people, something tells me his word doesn't carry much weight. The fact is I do not believe for a second other world leaders put nearly the weight into chest thumping as you seem to think they do.Given that the President all but decided on a military response--and walking back what was said does not change the reality--the second and third options were most viable. The approach that was taken has introduced a large sense of uncertainty and that uncertainty was swiftly exploited by all participants to the sectarian conflict, not to mention the President's domestic ideological foes. To outsiders, it has created perceptions of hesitation and weakness. Those perceptions were avoidable had the President pursued the second or third courses of action.
All great questions. Which is why it's good our President has decided to make sure our country has a voice in what we do, instead of unilaterally decided to attack.Looking ahead, there is risk that a U.S. effort to "degrade" Syria's strategic military capabilities (an implicit commitment to facilitate regime change) will be met by greater assistance to Assad by Russia, Iran, and/or Hezbollah. If that happens, what will the next U.S. step be? Moreover, are Congress and the President willing to embrace a growing commitment and the costs it would entail? Would such an effort be worth it as no matter who wins the sectarian conflict does not appear to offer any meaningful prospect of adopting policies that would be more consistent with U.S. interests?
All true...which again shows the incredibly delicate and difficult situation which we have on our hands and why it's good our President has opted to make sure our country has their voice.Finally, Senator McCain's enthusiastic backing of the Free Syrian Army notwithstanding, the reality is that the opposition has never provided any concrete commitments to adopt policies more conducive to U.S. interests. At the same time, it has never committed to pursuing peace with Israel (a strategic U.S. ally). Domestically, it has never set forth a "constitution-in-waiting" or similar document that would entail inclusive, representative government. It has had more than two years to do so. In contrast, its actions in territory it has gained suggests an illiberal regime with a high probability of persecuting Syria's ethnic and religious minorities.
Realistically, no he does not.But that's the whole point Sly, he DOES have to.
I still don't see why he should be embarrassed because of this.
Realistically, no he does not.
My point is not that the President should be "embarrassed" about going to Congress. I happen to believe that going to Congress gives the President the kind of legitimacy that no alternative course could.
Instead, I believe the way he went about it was clumsy to say the least. It created perceptions that were avoidable. It created the impression that he is being whipsawed by events (e.g., the outcome of the Parliamentary vote in the UK) rather than shaping them. He could have gone to Congress first before all but committing to a military response. Had he stated from the onset something along the lines that the U.S. must respond to the crime against humanity that took place in Syria and therefore he is asking Congress for military authorization to maximize his flexibility, things would be different. Instead, he all but declared that the U.S. would be responding militarily and imminently then, in a follow-up address (after the UK Parliamentary vote) stated that he would ask Congress for authorization (taking away the imminence of the response and creating questions as to whether there would be a military response).
In short, the strategy is right. No body can confer the kind of legitimacy the Congress could. However, the tactics were anything but optimal. They led to perceptions that were largely self-inflicted and entirely avoidable.
A week earlier and they probably didn't have all the intelligence in yet.
I disagree completely, I think it makes him very aware of the minefield which is the Middle East and it's him getting his ducks in a row before engaging in an attack which could have many different outcomes as a result.
It very well could be. It doesn't change the fact I think it's the right thing to do, as president of the country.
He should not be embarrassed for consulting Congress for approval of a strike in a country which used chemical agents to murder over 1,000 people in the middle of a brutal civil war which has escalated into a regional war. That very sentence alone should suggest to you how difficult of a situation this is. I see no reason why he should be embarrassed for consulting Congress. Like I said, it's not like Obama was told he had to, he chose to.
I mean why should he be embarrassed over something his chose to do when he didn't really have to?
Ahh, I see. I thought you were pushing the "embarrassed" narrative. My mistake.My point is not that the President should be "embarrassed" about going to Congress. I happen to believe that going to Congress gives the President the kind of legitimacy that no alternative course could.
I can see why you would see it that way, but I simply do not. The reason I do not is because I have no problem with the idea of being part of the world, rather than the father figure we've been playing for years (and still play in many cases). I don't have a problem with us moving as world events move because I think it's good for us not to always have to lead on everything.Instead, I believe the way he went about it was clumsy to say the least. It created perceptions that were avoidable. It created the impression that he is being whipsawed by events (e.g., the outcome of the Parliamentary vote in the UK) rather than shaping them. He could have gone to Congress first before all but committing to a military response. Had he stated from the onset something along the lines that the U.S. must respond to the crime against humanity that took place in Syria and therefore he is asking Congress for military authorization to maximize his flexibility, things would be different. Instead, he all but declared that the U.S. would be responding militarily and imminently then, in a follow-up address (after the UK Parliamentary vote) stated that he would ask Congress for authorization (taking away the imminence of the response and creating questions as to whether there would be a military response).
In short, the strategy is right. No body can confer the kind of legitimacy the Congress could. However, the tactics were anything but optimal. They led to perceptions that were largely self-inflicted and entirely avoidable.
I actually think it could be a third option, which is you have a very low threshold for perceived embarrassment. This isn't a case of an ex best friend pushing you in the 7th grade lunch line. Inflated ego should have nothing to do with this. This is a situation where lives are at stake, and possibly (thought doubtfully) a war on a scale unseen since the 1940s. I see absolutely no reason why the President should be embarrassed by the actions of other countries, nor the idea of consulting with Congress on a military action.I think you and I are at an impasse. If you don't think what has been happening isn't embarrassing, then you either have an extremely high threshold for embarrassment or Obama can do no wrong in your eyes. You can have the last word, but I don't think we can come to an agreement.
Here's a question for you. Right now we have a Congress who has done historically little over the last couple of years due to extreme partisanship. If Congress does authorize a strike on Syria, would you say it would be a positive reflection on Obama and his administration for moving Congress to do what Obama wants?
Agree to disagree then on the previous point. As for this question...I'm not sure that it would be a positive reflection. When is the last time Congress was realistically on the verge of not authorizing military spending when it came to the president requesting it? Even during the worst times in Iraq, Congress never realistically threatened to turn it down. Afghanistan still gets the funding that war needs with relative ease, no issues that I can remember for Iraq #1, can't remember if there was a battle over Bosnia.
I think the answer to your question really depends on how close the votes will be. If it barely slides by, I think it shows that Congress is very reluctant and that shows they are more worried about the office of President looking bad rather than the strength of the argument. If it passes overwhelmingly, then it could look good on Obama. I mean, it's not like Obama has even made his case to a session or committee of Congress directly, so I think more credit would go to Kerry personally.
Bad bad bad bad move.
Enough is enough.
Enough lives, enough billions, enough losing respect around the globe and enough dragging or trying to drag in to the fray other nations.
I know first hand what its like to bring home war dead and what effect it has on their families.
Sending "shots across the bow" very well lead to other actions by the Syrian govnernment and give them more resolve to keep fighting the rebels.
As well as aligning with al queada and striking us here at home.
I agree. And two world leaders came out swinging a week ago and in both cases calmer heads backed them down. And..........while the odds are highly against Putin getting involved militarily, only fools would dismiss the idea out of hand. That risk does exist however slight it may be. And we should act against the will of the American people, probably against the will of congress, certainly against the will of the UN and with a certain amount of risk that we could have conflict with Russia and all so that we can attack a country that HAS NOT ATTACKED US, and there's people on this board that call Ahmadinejad a lunatic, HA!!
Another horrible idea.Look every revolution in the mid-east has Al Qaeda elements including the revolutions in Egypt and Libya. However it has been shown that more moderate people take over. If we really want to stop the bloodshed, then either Assad systematically slaughters all of the rebels and rules Syria, or we destroy his military capability and let the Syrians decide their future.
What is happening in Syria is like what happened in Libya. Just attack the regime with air strikes and let the rebels take over.
We are not attacking the Syrians. We are attacking their dictator who is systematically killing them with chemical weapons. We have the military capability to stop him. Therefore we must.
Not to target you here; but how pathetic
Has this country become where we are now at a point of potentially going to war to make Obama look good... Not because we have been attacked, not because we might potentially be attacked at some future point, not even because the leader used chemical weapons (remember; the fact the chemicals were deployed is enough regardless of who was responsible), but just to make the president "look good"...
It's at the point where it's like children are running the show for a bunch of morons that will buy into any BS line that gets shoveled in front of them.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?