Besieged on all sides, he made the right move. He's asking Congress, obviously because he wants to be told "no," but this way he'll be able to blame Congress for any bad consequences or accusations of such.Exactly. But you know what? I'm okay with that. If Congress can actually stop this train before it derails, it's worth the kabuki later on. Although I would say this -- if I were John Kerry, I'd be turning in my letter of resignation after getting played the way he did this week.
Sunday, September 01, 2013
Getting to no
So the President is going to ask Congress for approval for military action in Syria after all. After all the bluster and sending John Kerry out over the countryside in a trial balloon, why do this now? Ann Althouse has diagnosed the matter correctly:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I get that Mr D is opposed to intervention in Syria, but what should happen to Asaad for gassing his own people? Is there a line or not? To break this down along political lines is purely hypocritical. There comes a time when politics need to be set aside. If this is not it, then when?
what should happen to Asaad for gassing his own people?
Ideally, his own people ought to drag him out of his palace and give him the Ceaucescu treatment. This may yet happen.
Is there a line or not?
I don't know. Barack Obama says there is. The British Parliament says there isn't.
There comes a time when politics need to be set aside. If this is not it, then when?
I used to believe that, but the events of 2003-2006 or so have disabused me of that notion, in more ways than one.
You can't piss in the punch bowl for 5 years and then be surprised when people aren't interested in drinking.
-W.B.
I've heard the point Anon is making from many, but I have to ask - how exactly is anything the administration has proposed going to either A) punish Assad or B) stop him (or others) from doing it again?
What we've been told thus far is that a bombing campaign will follow these guidelines: be brief, not target Assad or his WMDs, not commit us to a long-term presence in the civil war, and not alter the trajectory of the conflict (i.e. give the rebels the advantage). In short, we need to bomb Assad as a gesture that we're upset? How does that do anything but strengthen him and anyone who would follow in his footsteps?
I would support actually removing Assad, but that kind of commitment seems far beyond what the public or our political leaders are willing to tolerate.
I've heard the point Anon is making from many, but I have to ask - how exactly is anything the administration has proposed going to either A) punish Assad or B) stop him (or others) from doing it again?
Those are the questions we should be asking. And none of the answers on offer address those concerns.
The right question is not what should happen to Assad for gassing and otherwise murdering about a hundred thousand of his own people. God has a lake of fire all ready for his type. The correct question is how can you manage a "win win" resolution of conflict in a country with at least nine parties fighting Assad, seven of which would probably be using sarin gas on Assad and each other if they could get their hands on it.
First, prove that it was the government that gassed the civilians. Credible cases have been made to suggest the "rebels" had access to gas, and had a greater tactical reason (to bring the West in against Assad) for using it. It's not like their side has any qualms about sacrificing civilians to further its ends.
Second, what does the U.S. stand to gain if either Assad or the rebels "win"? Nothing.
Third, Assad is Putin's puppet; a direct move against him risks crossing a Russian red-line (of which Putin has been far too cagey to announce, unlike certain overmatched heads-of-state) and then things get lovely.
Other than that, though, why not? It's not as if Obama isn't self-absorbed enough to do an extended (war)drum solo.
Post a Comment