Are We Poised for a War in Syria?

[Cheshire Cat]

Obama's approach to the Syrian issue.  Perhaps the world underestimated his ability to play political chess.

Just sounds like some political spin-doctoring to me. 

Of course it is Ajax.    That's all leadership at this level is. The bottom line to all the political positioning is what is important and if the outcome is one that stops the U.S. from entering a civil war in Syria, why that is some good political doctoring. 

[Cheshire Cat]

Obama's approach to the Syrian issue.  Perhaps the world underestimated his ability to play political chess.



http://www.policymic.com/articles/62177/you-think-obama-wants-to-strike-syria-you-re-wrong

You Think Obama Wants to Strike Syria? You're Wrong



Let's be real for one second: President Barack Obama never had any intention for a military intervention in Syria. Every speech calling for United States action, "targeted strikes" or otherwise, every promise that the U.S. will not stand on the sidelines, the turn to Congress for approval — it has all been part of a political stunt. Obama played us good.

Less than a week ago, it seemed like a foregone conclusion that Obama would take executive action and pull the trigger on a missile strike against Syria in retaliation for President Bashar al-Assad's regime's use of chemical weaponry against Syrian rebels and civilians on August 21. Sure, the president kept promising that he had "not made a decision" on military intervention. But at the same time, his administration made it clear that there was "no doubt" the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its own citizens, thus crossing the "red line" Obama set a year ago when he said "A red line for us is when start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized." And yet now intervention has been put to Congress and looks like a long shot. Why would Obama go to Congress for approval, when he, despite a few legal qualms, could have pulled off a strike unilaterally — and even did so in Libya two years ago?

During this feigned war mongering, Obama has routinely claimed that U.S. credibility is at stake. In reality, though, the only credibility on the line is his own. Of course Obama doesn't want to invade Syria. It makes no sense for him. It's wildly unpopular with the public (to the tune of a 48% to 29% margin), politically disastrous within his own party, and garnering support from the sort of people the president wants nothing to do with (we're looking at you, Sen. Lindsey Graham). But he couldn't back off his previous stance, and he couldn't appear weak. If there's one thing Obama hates, it's looking weak.

So what does the president do when he wants to save face? First, he does some macho posturing, using phrases like "a danger to [U.S.] national security" and making it clear he's not afraid to go it alone. He calls out the UN Security Council for being, essentially, useless. He sends Secretary of State John Kerry out to present the evidence of a chemical attack and lay down the number of casualties and death toll. He makes everyone really, truly believe the U.S. is set for a strike on Syria.

And then, at the last minute, the president sends the decision to Congress ... where he knows it won't pass. Because the president doesn't want to strike Syria, he just has to pretend he does. This way, Congress takes the heat for doing nothing. At least Obama can say he tried. What does he do to make sure the U.S. stays out of Syria? Obama tanks.

The actions of the Obama administration since August 31, when Obama sent the vote to Congress, have been the actions of an administration throwing the fight. If he was really gunning for military action, he would've done it himself, not send it to a Congress that has been obstructionist since the get-go. Everything Obama has tried to push through has been dead on arrival, so why would this be any different? And let's say Obama did want Congress to pass an authorization of force; he wouldn't meet with the likes of the establishment like Sens. John McCain and Boehner, he'd meet with the ones standing in his way, like Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Mitch McConnell.

There are not enough "winky" thingies for this...lol

I agree.  I am smiling a big cheesy smile.  lol

[Ajax]

" I acknowledge your point." Thank You!

You're welcome.    I would be interested to read your responses to my Reply #213 when you have a moment:

The Obama Administration is on record saying the US can strike Syria with or without Congressional approval.  So why won't you blame Obama for not acting regardless of what Congress says?  While you're at it, go ahead and blame every other government on earth for not acting. 

If the military follows Obama's plan there will most certainly be more shooting and bombing deaths of civilians.  Didn't Obama say they're going to do a limited strike just to get rid of the chemical weapons?  It doesn't sound like Obama or anyone else is particularly worried about the shootings and bombings - just the chemical weapons. 

Who are you holding accountable for the hundreds of innocent children who have been killed by US drone strikes?

[Ajax]

Obama's approach to the Syrian issue.  Perhaps the world underestimated his ability to play political chess.

Just sounds like some political spin-doctoring to me. 

Of course it is Ajax.    That's all leadership at this level is.

"Leading from behind." 

[BridgeTroll]

[Cheshire Cat]

Obama's approach to the Syrian issue.  Perhaps the world underestimated his ability to play political chess.

Just sounds like some political spin-doctoring to me. 

Of course it is Ajax.    That's all leadership at this level is.

"Leading from behind." 

That's what good herders do.  Lead the flock where you would have them go and take care not to lead them off a cliff.  lol

[If_I_Loved_you]

If President Obama doesn't strike Syria because the House & Senate members vote it down. Anymore Chemical Weapon, Bombing or shooting deaths by the Syria Army I will blame those House & Senate members for these deaths!!!

The Obama Administration is on record saying the US can strike Syria with or without Congressional approval.  So why won't you blame Obama for not acting regardless of what Congress says?  While you're at it, go ahead and blame every other government on earth for not acting. 

If the military follows Obama's plan there will most certainly be more shooting and bombing deaths of civilians.  Didn't Obama say they're going to do a limited strike just to get rid of the chemical weapons?  It doesn't sound like Obama or anyone else is particularly worried about the shootings and bombings - just the chemical weapons. 

Who are you holding accountable for the hundreds of innocent children who have been killed by US drone strikes?

Look no one wants Innocence people to die. But the Drones that have killed a lot of Al Quadia leaders has been good for the world. So while I'm holding no one accountable. I am sorry that Innocence people have been killed.

[JeffreyS]

Who are you holding accountable for the hundreds of innocent children who have been killed by US drone strikes? 

You may have to provide something to back up the size of this claim.

In Pakistan alone, Wikipedia reports between 168-197 children killed by drone strikes.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan 

Here's a CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes

This is a recent strike in Afghanistan - we're still killing kids there.  I haven't been able to get numbers on children killed in Yemen and Afghanistan.  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/world/asia/two-deadly-attacks-in-afghanistan.html?_r=0

I'm not familiar with this organization, so take it with a grain of salt.  If they're correct, then the number of children killed in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia exceeds 200.  http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/12/03/november-2012-update-us-covert-actions-in-pakistan-yemen-and-somalia/

I found this, another one that I'll suggest you take with a grain of salt only because I don't know much about their organization, but it lists names of children who have been killed.  http://www.policymic.com/articles/24164/a-list-of-children-killed-by-drone-strikes-in-pakistan-and-yemen

http://www.policymic.com/articles/20884/is-america-like-adam-lanza-u-s-drone-strikes-have-killed-176-children-in-pakistan-alone

My lunch break is over, but I think it's fair to say US drone strikes have inadvertently killed hundreds of innocent children.  Maybe I should have said "scores" or "dozens" but I really don't think that makes it any better. 

OK I would say you have more than justified the original post.  More importantly wow war and intentional policing sucks.  We should stay out of those businesses as much as we can.

[JeffreyS]

Obama's approach to the Syrian issue.  Perhaps the world underestimated his ability to play political chess.



http://www.policymic.com/articles/62177/you-think-obama-wants-to-strike-syria-you-re-wrong

You Think Obama Wants to Strike Syria? You're Wrong



Let's be real for one second: President Barack Obama never had any intention for a military intervention in Syria. Every speech calling for United States action, "targeted strikes" or otherwise, every promise that the U.S. will not stand on the sidelines, the turn to Congress for approval — it has all been part of a political stunt. Obama played us good.

Less than a week ago, it seemed like a foregone conclusion that Obama would take executive action and pull the trigger on a missile strike against Syria in retaliation for President Bashar al-Assad's regime's use of chemical weaponry against Syrian rebels and civilians on August 21. Sure, the president kept promising that he had "not made a decision" on military intervention. But at the same time, his administration made it clear that there was "no doubt" the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its own citizens, thus crossing the "red line" Obama set a year ago when he said "A red line for us is when start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized." And yet now intervention has been put to Congress and looks like a long shot. Why would Obama go to Congress for approval, when he, despite a few legal qualms, could have pulled off a strike unilaterally — and even did so in Libya two years ago?

During this feigned war mongering, Obama has routinely claimed that U.S. credibility is at stake. In reality, though, the only credibility on the line is his own. Of course Obama doesn't want to invade Syria. It makes no sense for him. It's wildly unpopular with the public (to the tune of a 48% to 29% margin), politically disastrous within his own party, and garnering support from the sort of people the president wants nothing to do with (we're looking at you, Sen. Lindsey Graham). But he couldn't back off his previous stance, and he couldn't appear weak. If there's one thing Obama hates, it's looking weak.

So what does the president do when he wants to save face? First, he does some macho posturing, using phrases like "a danger to [U.S.] national security" and making it clear he's not afraid to go it alone. He calls out the UN Security Council for being, essentially, useless. He sends Secretary of State John Kerry out to present the evidence of a chemical attack and lay down the number of casualties and death toll. He makes everyone really, truly believe the U.S. is set for a strike on Syria.

And then, at the last minute, the president sends the decision to Congress ... where he knows it won't pass. Because the president doesn't want to strike Syria, he just has to pretend he does. This way, Congress takes the heat for doing nothing. At least Obama can say he tried. What does he do to make sure the U.S. stays out of Syria? Obama tanks.

The actions of the Obama administration since August 31, when Obama sent the vote to Congress, have been the actions of an administration throwing the fight. If he was really gunning for military action, he would've done it himself, not send it to a Congress that has been obstructionist since the get-go. Everything Obama has tried to push through has been dead on arrival, so why would this be any different? And let's say Obama did want Congress to pass an authorization of force; he wouldn't meet with the likes of the establishment like Sens. John McCain and Boehner, he'd meet with the ones standing in his way, like Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Mitch McConnell.

There are not enough "winky" thingies for this...lol

There will be much spin if Obama finds a way out.  The same people who said he punted to Congress because he had no stomach for war will now say Obama wanted to strike more than life itself.

I think he tried to avoid getting involved after the first red line incident and decided he couldn't after the second.  The part Obama did Brilliantly/Incompetently (depending on where your current conspiracy theory lies as to his motivation) was give the Debate room to mature and positions time to be validated or exposed by forcing Congress to weigh in.

[Cheshire Cat]

Looks like people are starting to get "Obama's" choices. 



http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/09/obama-was-right-to-go-to-congress-the-fact-that-he-might-lose-proves-it/   (click link for complete article)

The White House's decision to ask Congress for permission to strike Syria is being covered as a political story. If Congress backs the resolution, then that's a "win" for Obama. If they rebuff the administration, that's a loss — and it makes Obama look like a lame duck.

All that's probably true in terms of political narrative. But who wins three days of Washington's inane political narrative sweepstakes is an appalling way to judge matters of war and peace. Losing the vote would prove that Obama was right to hold it in the first place. For reasons both democratic and pragmatic, it's unwise for the president to launch wars of choice that the public overwhelmingly opposes.

But we'll get to that in a second. First, let's look closely at what will happen to the rest of Obama's agenda if he loses the Syria vote. Will House Republicans spy weakness and stop working with Obama on immigration, gun control and health reform?

Oh, wait.

Will they threaten to breach the debt ceiling unless the White House offers implausible policy concessions?

Err...

Will liberal Democrats begin to mobilize against Obama's preferred choice for Federal Reserve Chairman?

Well, you see, the funny thing about that is...

There's no peaceful, productive relationship with Congress for this vote to disrupt. The White House can't get anything past House Republicans now. Neither a "yes" nor a "no" vote on Syria won't change that. The downstream consequences of a congressional rebuff are, effectively, zero. It's a few bad news cycles, and then all Washington will be talking about is the October debt limit.

What would change Obama's presidency is a disastrous intervention in Syria. Imagine a series of American strikes, followed by either another gas attack by Assad, or some kind of terrorist reprisal by Hezbollah, or both. All of a sudden the administration either needs to become a full participant in the Syrian civil war or retreat and take the blame for all that happens in their wake

[BridgeTroll]

Well thank god he is doing... whatever it is he is doing... 

[Cheshire Cat]

Well thank god he is doing... whatever it is he is doing... 

lmao, exactly!

[If_I_Loved_you]

Wouldn't it be so much better if Assad could drop "I didn't gas my own people" and let the world know the Real Truth? And not take some word of a Mint Press so called News agency?

[Cheshire Cat]

CNN released this poll today which clearly shows that the majority of Americans "DO NOT" want congress to approve any strikes in Syria.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/politics/syria-poll-main/index.html?hpt=hp_bn3  (click link for full article and poll)

President Barack Obama presses his case for a strike on Syria, a new national survey shows him swimming against a strong tide of public opinion that doesn't want the United States to get involved.

The CNN/ORC International poll released on Monday shows that even though eight in 10 Americans believe that Bashar al-Assad's regime gassed its own people, a strong majority doesn't want Congress to pass a resolution authorizing a military strike against it.

More than seven in 10 say such a strike would not achieve significant goals for the United States and a similar amount say it's not in the national interest for the country to get involved in Syria's civil war.

See complete poll results (PDF)

The poll comes at the start of a pivotal week for the president.

The Senate is expected to take up the resolution after returning from its summer recess on Monday while Obama participates in a round of interviews with the major television outlets. Wolf Blitzer's interview with Obama will air Monday on "The Situation Room" at 6 p.m. ET.
Obama's Syria struggle
Congress gets to work on Syria
Why China is staying out of Syria crisis
Obama's challenge from left on Syria

Three questions for Obama

Amid a flurry of briefings by White House officials, Obama will travel to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to make his case with lawmakers hours before he speaks to the nation in a prime-time address.

"Even as he works members of Congress one by one in small group settings, President Obama's biggest challenge is the American public at large," said John King, CNN chief national correspondent.

"More than seven in 10 Americans simply don't see a military response making any difference. They don't see it doing any good. They're very skeptical, post Iraq and even post Libya and post Egypt, that the United States can do something in a limited way in the Middle East and walk away with a success. And so the skepticism is driving it right now."

The stakes are high for the president.

After pushing for strikes against Syria, Obama unexpectedly announced on August 31 that he would ask Congress to authorize military action. Failing to get Congress to go along would be an embarrassment for the commander in chief.

"He'll go to establishing a new high bar to what it means to being a lame duck this early," CNN contributor and Republican strategist Ana Navarro said. "It would be devastating, I think, for rest of his agenda."

But Stephanie Cutter, another CNN contributor who was Obama's 2012 deputy campaign manager, said Congress's not passing the resolution would be "a blow to the United States, not a blow to the president. It's a blow to the United States' authority all over the world. And unprecedented."

"That's why you're going to see some members of Congress vote for that particular reason. Some said they're voting for that particular reason," she said.

Obama faces steep climb in House

The Senate could vote on the resolution as early as Wednesday and the outcome there is very much in doubt. Even more uncertain are prospects in the House where Republican leaders say they'll wait to see what happens in the Senate first.

"Congressional approval would help Obama a little, but a majority would still oppose airstrikes against military targets in Syria," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. "If Congress authorizes military action, 55% of Americans would still oppose airstrikes."

The president has had at least a small majority of public support behind him in conflicts involving the United States over the past 20 years.

Eighty-six percent of those surveyed in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll less than a month after the 9/11 terror attacks favored military action, and 56% backed the United States and its allies in creating a "no-fly" zone over Libya in 2011.
On Syria, Obama could face impeachment
Pope Francis against strike in Syria
Should Obama act in Syria without public support?
Doubts remain over who's behind attack

Only U.S. involvement in NATO airstrikes on Serbia in 1999 during the Clinton administration split the public down the middle, with 43% supporting involvement and 40% opposing it.

'This is not Iraq or Afghanistan'

While 64% supported using American ground troops in Iraq in 2003, intelligence indicating Saddam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction was later discredited. That has contributed to public doubts about Obama administration claims of evidence showing that al-Assad's regime gassed its own people on August 21 outside Damascus, killing more than 1,400 people.

Fifty-nine percent of people questioned say they don't think Congress should approve a proposed resolution authorizing military action against Syria for up to 90 days -- an initial 60-day window plus another 30 following congressional notification -- but prohibiting the use of ground troops. About 40% support that plan.

If Congress rejects the Syria resolution, the White House has said that the president still has the authority to strike.

"I think it would be a mistake for me to jump the gun and speculate because right now I'm working to get as much support as possible out of Congress," Obama said on Friday when asked by CNN senior White House correspondent Brianna Keilar what he would do if the resolution failed.

But the poll indicates Americans are quite clear on that point: More than seven in 10 say they would oppose U.S. airstrikes against Syria if Congress does not authorize it.

[If_I_Loved_you]

CNN released this poll today which clearly shows that the majority of Americans "DO NOT" want congress to approve any strikes in Syria.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/politics/syria-poll-main/index.html?hpt=hp_bn3  (click link for full article and poll)

President Barack Obama presses his case for a strike on Syria, a new national survey shows him swimming against a strong tide of public opinion that doesn't want the United States to get involved.

The CNN/ORC International poll released on Monday shows that even though eight in 10 Americans believe that Bashar al-Assad's regime gassed its own people, a strong majority doesn't want Congress to pass a resolution authorizing a military strike against it.

More than seven in 10 say such a strike would not achieve significant goals for the United States and a similar amount say it's not in the national interest for the country to get involved in Syria's civil war.

See complete poll results (PDF)

The poll comes at the start of a pivotal week for the president.

The Senate is expected to take up the resolution after returning from its summer recess on Monday while Obama participates in a round of interviews with the major television outlets. Wolf Blitzer's interview with Obama will air Monday on "The Situation Room" at 6 p.m. ET.
Obama's Syria struggle
Congress gets to work on Syria
Why China is staying out of Syria crisis
Obama's challenge from left on Syria

Three questions for Obama

Amid a flurry of briefings by White House officials, Obama will travel to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to make his case with lawmakers hours before he speaks to the nation in a prime-time address.

"Even as he works members of Congress one by one in small group settings, President Obama's biggest challenge is the American public at large," said John King, CNN chief national correspondent.

"More than seven in 10 Americans simply don't see a military response making any difference. They don't see it doing any good. They're very skeptical, post Iraq and even post Libya and post Egypt, that the United States can do something in a limited way in the Middle East and walk away with a success. And so the skepticism is driving it right now."

The stakes are high for the president.

After pushing for strikes against Syria, Obama unexpectedly announced on August 31 that he would ask Congress to authorize military action. Failing to get Congress to go along would be an embarrassment for the commander in chief.

"He'll go to establishing a new high bar to what it means to being a lame duck this early," CNN contributor and Republican strategist Ana Navarro said. "It would be devastating, I think, for rest of his agenda."

But Stephanie Cutter, another CNN contributor who was Obama's 2012 deputy campaign manager, said Congress's not passing the resolution would be "a blow to the United States, not a blow to the president. It's a blow to the United States' authority all over the world. And unprecedented."

"That's why you're going to see some members of Congress vote for that particular reason. Some said they're voting for that particular reason," she said.

Obama faces steep climb in House

The Senate could vote on the resolution as early as Wednesday and the outcome there is very much in doubt. Even more uncertain are prospects in the House where Republican leaders say they'll wait to see what happens in the Senate first.

"Congressional approval would help Obama a little, but a majority would still oppose airstrikes against military targets in Syria," CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. "If Congress authorizes military action, 55% of Americans would still oppose airstrikes."

The president has had at least a small majority of public support behind him in conflicts involving the United States over the past 20 years.

Eighty-six percent of those surveyed in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll less than a month after the 9/11 terror attacks favored military action, and 56% backed the United States and its allies in creating a "no-fly" zone over Libya in 2011.
On Syria, Obama could face impeachment
Pope Francis against strike in Syria
Should Obama act in Syria without public support?
Doubts remain over who's behind attack

Only U.S. involvement in NATO airstrikes on Serbia in 1999 during the Clinton administration split the public down the middle, with 43% supporting involvement and 40% opposing it.

'This is not Iraq or Afghanistan'

While 64% supported using American ground troops in Iraq in 2003, intelligence indicating Saddam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction was later discredited. That has contributed to public doubts about Obama administration claims of evidence showing that al-Assad's regime gassed its own people on August 21 outside Damascus, killing more than 1,400 people.

Fifty-nine percent of people questioned say they don't think Congress should approve a proposed resolution authorizing military action against Syria for up to 90 days -- an initial 60-day window plus another 30 following congressional notification -- but prohibiting the use of ground troops. About 40% support that plan.

If Congress rejects the Syria resolution, the White House has said that the president still has the authority to strike.

"I think it would be a mistake for me to jump the gun and speculate because right now I'm working to get as much support as possible out of Congress," Obama said on Friday when asked by CNN senior White House correspondent Brianna Keilar what he would do if the resolution failed.

But the poll indicates Americans are quite clear on that point: More than seven in 10 say they would oppose U.S. airstrikes against Syria if Congress does not authorize it.

Funny Diane if the poll was just between You and Me it would be a tie?