Yesterday, president Obama announced that he was seeking congressional approval prior to taking any action against Syria. Under the Constitution, it was clearly the proper course of action. Obama did the right thing.
Today, however, we are learning that in coming to that decision, Obama and his staff acted more like total amateurs than the leaders of the United States of America. Consider this:
1. The decision to go to Congress was made at the last minute. If this was just a case of keeping options open until a final decision was made, that would be understandable. But no, according to this report in the Wall Street Journal, the option of seeking the approval of Congress was not even one of the actions being considered until about 14 hours prior to the announcement. After a year following the Obama speech when he made use of chemical weapons the crossing of the "red line", the White House had not figured out that it would need Congress to approve a military response to a violation by Syria. A week after the obscene chemical attack that killed nearly 1500, which was the worst of fifteen such attacks by the Assad regime since Obama set out his red line, Obama's staff had not been considering obtaining the approval of Congress.
2. It may be another manifestation of the same problem, but the media is reporting that America's allies were stunned by president Obama's decision to go to Congress. The entire Middle East is on edge awaiting a big American strike against Assad. We see stories of Israelis in line to get gas masks. We hear of countries moving their defenses around to better guard against any retaliation from the Syria/Iran/Hezbollah alliance. Places like Lebanon are bracing for sectarian strife. The new Egyptian government is concerned about anti-American actions after any attack. But Obama and his national security staff did not think to warn our allies that Obama was considering seeking Congressional approval. They were left to find out the decision from the media reports. Is there no one at the White House who understands international diplomacy? It seems that the answer is "no".
3. Now that the decision to go to Congress has been taken, the folks around Obama are once again back to their usual plan of action; they are leaking information to the media as quickly as humanly possible. According to these leaks, the biggest reason for the decision to go to Congress was not the Constitution, our nation's highest law, which requires such approval. No, the main reason for the change of course was political; Obama wanted to have Congress make the decision and own the consequences. Thousands have been killed in 16 chemical attacks by the Assad regime. The latest of these attacks came just the other day, AFTER the horrendous attack in Damascus that left about 1500 dead. The president himself declared such attacks unacceptable in his red line speech. Of course, until there was actual video showing the enormous suffering inflicted on the Syrians hit by the attacks that was shown over and over on TV screens around the world, Obama did nothing in response to the Syrian use of chemical weapons. Nevertheless, Assad and his thugs have acted in clear violation of international law. In deciding how to respond, though, Obama is focused on American politics. It is really sad.
A year ago, after the red line speech, Obama would have been able easily to get scores of countries to sign on to a pledge that there would be consequences against the use of Syrian chemical weapons. Obama could have lined up his own coalition of the willing just the same way that George Bush got nearly 50 countries to support the Iraq War. Six months ago, when the definitive proof of chemical attacks by Assad first appeared, Obama could also have arranged a coalition. Maybe there would have been fewer countries involved, but there would still have been many. Meanwhile, Obama could easily have gotten a Congressional resolution supporting opposition to Syrian use of chemical weapons and granting the president some limited ability to respond to their use absent further Congressional action. It would have passed; very few senators or congressmen would want to appear to vote in favor of chemical weapons. Of course, such a resolution would have required the White House to actually work with the Congress and that is something that the Obamacrats in the White House seem never to do. None of these efforts would have been difficult. None of these efforts would have required a great amount of effort or time. All that was needed was a minimal understanding of how international diplomacy works and some sense at the top that preventing chemical weapons use was actually a serious issue. Obama needed actually to understand that his giving a speech setting a red line was not enough. Words need to be followed by deeds.
So here we are. Obama has done the right thing. Sadly, he has done the right thing in the wrong way.
Today, however, we are learning that in coming to that decision, Obama and his staff acted more like total amateurs than the leaders of the United States of America. Consider this:
1. The decision to go to Congress was made at the last minute. If this was just a case of keeping options open until a final decision was made, that would be understandable. But no, according to this report in the Wall Street Journal, the option of seeking the approval of Congress was not even one of the actions being considered until about 14 hours prior to the announcement. After a year following the Obama speech when he made use of chemical weapons the crossing of the "red line", the White House had not figured out that it would need Congress to approve a military response to a violation by Syria. A week after the obscene chemical attack that killed nearly 1500, which was the worst of fifteen such attacks by the Assad regime since Obama set out his red line, Obama's staff had not been considering obtaining the approval of Congress.
2. It may be another manifestation of the same problem, but the media is reporting that America's allies were stunned by president Obama's decision to go to Congress. The entire Middle East is on edge awaiting a big American strike against Assad. We see stories of Israelis in line to get gas masks. We hear of countries moving their defenses around to better guard against any retaliation from the Syria/Iran/Hezbollah alliance. Places like Lebanon are bracing for sectarian strife. The new Egyptian government is concerned about anti-American actions after any attack. But Obama and his national security staff did not think to warn our allies that Obama was considering seeking Congressional approval. They were left to find out the decision from the media reports. Is there no one at the White House who understands international diplomacy? It seems that the answer is "no".
3. Now that the decision to go to Congress has been taken, the folks around Obama are once again back to their usual plan of action; they are leaking information to the media as quickly as humanly possible. According to these leaks, the biggest reason for the decision to go to Congress was not the Constitution, our nation's highest law, which requires such approval. No, the main reason for the change of course was political; Obama wanted to have Congress make the decision and own the consequences. Thousands have been killed in 16 chemical attacks by the Assad regime. The latest of these attacks came just the other day, AFTER the horrendous attack in Damascus that left about 1500 dead. The president himself declared such attacks unacceptable in his red line speech. Of course, until there was actual video showing the enormous suffering inflicted on the Syrians hit by the attacks that was shown over and over on TV screens around the world, Obama did nothing in response to the Syrian use of chemical weapons. Nevertheless, Assad and his thugs have acted in clear violation of international law. In deciding how to respond, though, Obama is focused on American politics. It is really sad.
A year ago, after the red line speech, Obama would have been able easily to get scores of countries to sign on to a pledge that there would be consequences against the use of Syrian chemical weapons. Obama could have lined up his own coalition of the willing just the same way that George Bush got nearly 50 countries to support the Iraq War. Six months ago, when the definitive proof of chemical attacks by Assad first appeared, Obama could also have arranged a coalition. Maybe there would have been fewer countries involved, but there would still have been many. Meanwhile, Obama could easily have gotten a Congressional resolution supporting opposition to Syrian use of chemical weapons and granting the president some limited ability to respond to their use absent further Congressional action. It would have passed; very few senators or congressmen would want to appear to vote in favor of chemical weapons. Of course, such a resolution would have required the White House to actually work with the Congress and that is something that the Obamacrats in the White House seem never to do. None of these efforts would have been difficult. None of these efforts would have required a great amount of effort or time. All that was needed was a minimal understanding of how international diplomacy works and some sense at the top that preventing chemical weapons use was actually a serious issue. Obama needed actually to understand that his giving a speech setting a red line was not enough. Words need to be followed by deeds.
So here we are. Obama has done the right thing. Sadly, he has done the right thing in the wrong way.
1 comment:
What amazes me-- He calls this a Security Threat to the U.S. , however, does not ask Congress to call a special session & return on Tuesday Sept 2nd. vs Sept 9th.
Can't be much of a security threat!!!!!!
Looks like we will have something brewing for the anniversary of 9/11
Post a Comment