What To Do About Syria

[Ben]

Always remember that morals, not money, shape America's foreign policy...

Senators Authorizing Syria Strike Got More Defense Cash Than Lawmakers Voting No:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/201...ization-money/

[Ben]

As the American poet Allen Ginsberg wrote: "War is good business/Invest your son."
It's true. War is good for business, big business....

[Stavros]

I think that's pretty accurate. Clinton was a diplomatic machine. She spent most of her tenure on the road, negotiating face-to-face with foreign leaders. Panetta quietly ran DoD from the background, preferring soft-power solutions.

Also remember that both Kerry and Hagel are veterans. Both volunteered to serve and come from families that emphasized military service. Neither is true of Clinton or Panetta.

Tough to say that this change of tone was an intentional move by Obama, since it seems that Kerry was his second choice for State after Susan Rice, who I think would have been more of a soft-power diplomat.

Thanks for the insight -there are nuances to the reporting of news in the USA which escape us in the UK. I wonder what the view is on Obama's decision to refer the military strike to Congress. Some might see this as a weakness, a concession to those who believe that policy making was going too fast when it is up to the President to act decisively. Or that by going to Congress he is taking a political risk he doesn't need to, while in the process re-affirming the importance of Congress as a voice for 'the people' through their representatives, and is thus more inclusive than was experienced under the Bush administration.

Perhaps a mixture of the two, or maybe doubts about the consequences are now weighing more heavily than the 'moral' argument for action following a chemical act which according to Bild, in Germany, may have been caused by rogue elements in the military; although the same German intelligence body (the BND, gathering intel from a ship off the Syrian coast) claimed to have intercepted a phone call between a Hezbollah official in Beirut and an Iranian diplomat in Damascus which claims Asad ordered the attack.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3889551.html

[cameron47]

Absolutely NOTHING...It is a civil war where you have the bad against the bad. You have the Assad regime fighting the rebels who are joined with Al Qaeda....there are no good guys here. The rebels are killing Christians and burning down churches...and I will bet both sides have used nerve gas. This is a conflict we need no part of and over 90% of the American people are against taking any military action....as nothing good will come from this.

[runningdownthatdream]

Thanks for the insight -there are nuances to the reporting of news in the USA which escape us in the UK. I wonder what the view is on Obama's decision to refer the military strike to Congress. Some might see this as a weakness, a concession to those who believe that policy making was going too fast when it is up to the President to act decisively. Or that by going to Congress he is taking a political risk he doesn't need to, while in the process re-affirming the importance of Congress as a voice for 'the people' through their representatives, and is thus more inclusive than was experienced under the Bush administration.

Perhaps a mixture of the two, or maybe doubts about the consequences are now weighing more heavily than the 'moral' argument for action following a chemical act which according to Bild, in Germany, may have been caused by rogue elements in the military; although the same German intelligence body (the BND, gathering intel from a ship off the Syrian coast) claimed to have intercepted a phone call between a Hezbollah official in Beirut and an Iranian diplomat in Damascus which claims Asad ordered the attack.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3889551.html

I think Obama is going for the Pontius Pilate play and counting on a NO vote from Congress. It's the surest way he can wash his hands of the problem and keep up his anti-war persona while still making noise about what should be done.

[trish]

I think Obama is going for the Pontius Pilate play and counting on a NO vote from Congress. It's the surest way he can wash his hands of the problem and keep up his anti-war persona while still making noise about what should be done.

That was my impression (and hope) until he started selling it. Why address the Nation tomorrow night if not to try to sway the general public? (On a side note, did all the type face get unreadily small in here, or did I do something to my setting?)

[runningdownthatdream]

That was my impression (and hope) until he started selling it. Why address the Nation tomorrow night if not to try to sway the general public? (On a side note, did all the type face get unreadily small in here, or did I do something to my setting?)

He already knows from the polling that a huge majority is opposed to any military action against Syria - he'll make a pitch about the awfulness about oppressive regimes, gassing of citizens, etc but he's counting on losing that vote in Congress. There's no real impetus for America to do anything other than some token word-play about human rights abuses. Americans in general don't really give a shit about non-white people killing each other. More-so that these are muslims killing each other.

In fact notice the massive upheavals in muslim countries in and around the middle-east since Obama took power? It kinda speaks to the methods he was advocating during the 2008 election. Namely that people in those countries should determine their own fates. I suspect American money has contributed to many of those opposition movements - certainly American technology (Facebook and Twitter to name a few) has had a profound impact on whats happened over. These same companies which may or may not be influenced by the CIA and NSA behind the scenes.

America has benefited from that upheaval as the internal conflicts over there has kept conflicts from America and its partners - all in all not a bad thing at all. Let the people in those countries figure out what's best for them.

On another note, what do you think about American politicans wanting to arm nameless/faceless Syrian 'rebels' with assault weapons to fight their own internationally recognized government while simultaneously decrying their use domestically? Are the conspiracy theorists right after all about the government wanting to ban assault weapons because they're fearful of another revolution?

...............................you must have screwed up your browser settings as i don't have any issue with reduced typeface

[Stavros]

That was my impression (and hope) until he started selling it. Why address the Nation tomorrow night if not to try to sway the general public? (On a side note, did all the type face get unreadily small in here, or did I do something to my setting?)

Must be your settings, it all looks the same from here.

Will be interesting to see if the Russian proposal to take Syria's chemical stocks leads anywhere- it started with what is becoming an irritating habit by John Kerry to improvise policy, suggesting in a speech in London the option of removal and then discounting it, only for the Russians to pick up the ball and play with it.
On the one hand, it would de-escalate the tension on this issue, but then the admin kicks in = identifying all the stocks, appointing independent people to remove them, verification that it has removed all the stocks, rather like verifying arms control between the USA and the USSR or decommissioning the IRA's weapons... suddenly the Russians and the Iranians -whose troops were subjected to chemical attack in the war with Iraq- realise that there must be limits, not least because in Russia's case those weapons could find their way into Russia as well as the Caucasus...I wonder if this is part of a movement that leads to a gradual run down of the violence -it won't end it, but perhaps it is time for the Syrian opposition, which militarily has barely achieved a stalemate, to reconsider its political strategy -if it has one.

[Ben]

Andrew Bacevich: Drama from Obama:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/1757...ma_from_obama/

Andrew J. Bacevich is a professor of history and international relations at Boston University.

[Stavros]

Guess who's coming to dinner? Or not, as the case may be...