Does Obama Have the Right to Change His Mind on Syria?

[mota bhai 2,675]

By Charlie Cook
September 2, 2013 | 12:30 p.m.

"Whatever your views on the larger issues, it's hard not to conclude that the administration's handling of Syria over the last year has been a case study in how not to do foreign policy." That one line in a column written over the weekend by CNN's Fareed Zakaria, one of the most thoughtful journalistic voices on foreign policy matters, is pretty devastating and probably dead on. The last few days specifically, have not been a pretty sight.

Just in case anyone was on an island in the South Pacific over the past couple of weeks, all of this is over whether the United States should attack Syria to punish President Bashar al-Assad and his regime for reportedly using chemical weapons, specifically sarin gas, on his country's citizens, killing more than 1,400 of them, including hundreds of children. Just over a year ago, in August 2012, President Obama told reporters at the White House, "We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region, that that's a red line for us, and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front, or the use of chemical weapons. That would change my calculations significantly." That was a bold and unambiguous statement; it projected strength and leadership. This is the kind of statement that should not be made without having both the will and ability to back it up if necessary. As Zakaria put it, "Now, a pundit can engage in grandiose speech. The president of the United States should make declarations like this only if he has some strategy to actually achieve them. He did not."

It is very clear that Obama and his administration had every intention of launching an attack late last week, reportedly with ship-launched cruise missiles, possibly followed by manned, stealth bombers. The purpose was to punish the Syrian regime, but not to topple it, as there is reason to believe that some rebel elements are as bad for the United States, if not worse, than Assad is. So there was a certain amount of needle-threading involved here. Hurt Assad enough to make him hurt, regret what he did, ensure that he never does that again, and make a strong point for despots elsewhere and in the future—but not significantly alter the balance in the civil war, at least until there is a viable side that we would actually want to see win and govern Syria.

...
A U.S. attack seemed inevitable until three things happened. First came NBC News polling showing considerable skepticism and opposition to an attack. Next, the British Parliament's vote turning down Prime Minister David Cameron's move for the United Kingdom to participate in a U.S.-led attack to punish Syria. Then a chorus of members of Congress, from both sides of the aisle, started either opposing or, more frequently, calling for congressional approval before any attack. Clearly, Obama was going to come under intense fire no matter what he did. The fact that the U.S. has been at war in Afghanistan and Iraq for just over 12 years, the longest period of sustained war in American history, no doubt is a major factor in the weariness on the part of average citizens and elected leaders and their reluctance to get involved in almost any level with another war. Even if something looked limited in scope, the fear of deeper involvement is huge. As University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato sarcastically tweeted, "Syria is in the Middle East. What could go wrong?"

Friday night, Obama got cold feet and pulled back, deciding to seek congressional approval after all. To many, Obama's lurching suggests that he was weak, inconsistent, and indecisive, a pretty bad combination for the person heading up the world's largest superpower. But perhaps Obama was following the admonition of Shakespeare's Falstaff in Henry IV that discretion is the better part of valor. Putting aside the substantive policy question whether we should or should not punish Syria for its apparent use of chemical weapons ... what if he just changed his mind? Are presidents allowed to second-guess themselves and change their minds if they conclude that a previous or tentative decision was made in error?

...
Even if he never should have made the red-line stand last year, does that obligate Obama to act on it if there is growing evidence that at least half of the public as well as some of our closest allies do not support it? If there is one agreed-upon lesson from Vietnam, it is, don't get into a fight that the American people do not support.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/columns/off-to-the-races/does-obama-have-the-right-to-change-his-mind-on-syria-20130902

[Teddy B 17,252]

This appears to be one major issue that most everyone here on VJ agrees on. I haven't yet seen anyone post in favor of attacking Syria, but I haven't read every thread either.

[mota bhai 2,675]

I know one prominent poster who is in favor but he may not have expressed that here yet.

[JohnR! 5,495]

This appears to be one major issue that most everyone here on VJ agrees on. I haven't yet seen anyone post in favor of attacking Syria, but I haven't read every thread either.

That is why Obama is getting Congress involved. What if we attack and later it is revealed it was not the al-Assad that launched the alleged chemical weapons? Remember Iraq?

[DaveE 178]

Yep I remember Iraq, and what a "former" official said happened to their WMD's. Whats that guy doing now?

The official, James Clapper Jr., a retired lieutenant general, said satellite imagery showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into Syria, just before the U.S. invasion in March, led him to believe that illicit weapons material "unquestionably" had been moved out of Iraq.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-10-29/news/0310290219_1_illicit-weapons-clapper-weapons-inspector

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

That is why Obama is getting Congress involved. What if we attack and later it is revealed it was not the al-Assad that launched the alleged chemical weapons? Remember Iraq?

Well if Boehner was smart he would say, The President does not need our approval for a limited strike, Put the ball back in his court and wash his hands of a lose lose situation.

I said if he was smart he isn't

[mota bhai 2,675]

Well if Boehner was smart he would say, The President does not need our approval for a limited strike ...

The party that wants to limit the power of government and restore constitutional checks and balances can't say that.

[Sousuke 1,214]

IMO, when the President creates a "red line" he should get Congressional support prior making such a declaration. IE with Syria, he should have gotten support ahead of time and then after garnering support a requirement would be to present weapon's usage to congress for a second approval.

This would have been cleaner, and likely would have prevented the red line speech in the first place.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

IMO, when the President creates a "red line" he should get Congressional support prior making such a declaration. IE with Syria, he should have gotten support ahead of time and then after garnering support a requirement would be to present weapon's usage to congress for a second approval.

This would have been cleaner, and likely would have prevented the red line speech in the first place.

Obama painted himself into a corner. Now he is going to use congress as a scape goat.

[JohnR! 5,495]

Well if Boehner was smart he would say, The President does not need our approval for a limited strike, Put the ball back in his court and wash his hands of a lose lose situation.

I said if he was smart he isn't

To be sure, Obama has everyone on the spot. It is time Congress walks the talk.

Obama painted himself into a corner. Now he is going to use congress as a scape goat.

Not really. He was clear when he said he does not need the approval from Congress to order a strike. He made no mistake about it.

The question is whether Boehner can play with the big boys, as he so much wanted...

[Sousuke 1,214]

Obama painted himself into a corner. Now he is going to use congress as a scape goat.

I'm counting on the Tea Party group forming a coalition with anti war democrats. IMO only neoconservatives and a few democrats will vote for this in the house.

The Senate is more likely to approve.

[lostinblue 1,989]

[lostinblue 1,989]

To be sure, Obama has everyone on the spot. It is time Congress walks the talk.

Not really. He was clear when he said he does not need the approval from Congress to order a strike. He made no mistake about it.

The question is whether Boehner can play with the big boys, as he so much wanted...

The kenyan has NO clue what he is doing or what is going on in the middle east. I draw a red line .. no I don't ...Maybe I do,,, Maybe I don't,,,,if the evidence points the blame at the Syrian rebel opposition, is the Kenyan going to bomb them for doing it?

[JohnR! 5,495]

is the Kenyan going to bomb them for doing it?

You would need to ask the Kenyan members.

This topic is about Obama, the US and Syria.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Gegel

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

This appears to be one major issue that most everyone here on VJ agrees on. I haven't yet seen anyone post in favor of attacking Syria, but I haven't read every thread either.

My Jewish freind(s) are pissed.