An interesting idea I have heard lately is that president Obama only asked Congress for authorization to strike Syria so that it could say no and the Obama would no longer be forced to defend the "red line" he had announced. Under this view, Obama and his people brilliantly planned a deceptive move to put the burden of refusing to strike squarely on Congress; Obama could support moving against chemical weapons without having to do it. To go one better than John Kerry, the plan would let Obama be for the strike on Assad at the same time that he is against it.
There is truly only one word to adequately describe this idea: ridiculous. Think about all the flaws.
1. Obama has managed to shatter his base in Congress and in the country with this move. Scores of Democrats in Congress have come out against Obama's request for authorization. We are now seeing part of the anti-war movements on the left beginning to demonstrate against Obama and his plan. No rational president would intentionally demolish a part of his political support when there are so many battles coming up in the near future. Once the unity of the Democrats has been shattered, it will be much easier for there to be defectors on issues like spending, the debt ceiling, and the like.
2. Obama has managed to spend a whole week since making the request to Congress without telling the nation why it is in our national interest to strike the Assad forces in Syria. I know that the reason is that Assad used chemical weapons, but why does that use affect our national interest? There are clear answers to this question, but Obama and his folks have not been providing them. Even if the request to Congress is just a ploy, it does not make sense that the supposedly brilliant Obama who planned the ploy now wants to appear to be the bumbling Obama who cannot even state where America's national interests lie. If the goal is simply to blame Congress for the decision not to strike, there is no reason for Obama to do major damage to his public reputation at the same time.
3. Obama has also managed not to tell the country what the plan is for dealing with the Syrian situation once the strike has been carried out. Here too, there is no reason for Obama to try to look like an idiot if all he wants is to find an excuse not to strike.
4. By going to Congress the way he did, Obama managed to shock and dismay America's allies around the world. Remember, the Obamacrats made clear that we were going to strike Syria and then at the last second, Obama announced he was going to Congress. Allies who were expecting a strike were shocked by the amateurish last minute switch. Now don't get me wrong: Obama properly is seeking Congressional approval. The need for that approval, however, is not a last minute afterthought; it is a Constitutional mandate. There was no reason to mislead our allies about what we were doing. Again, there is no reason for Obama to try to alienate our friends and allies or to undermine their confidence (if any) in his leadership.
All things considered, Obama's conduct of the entire Syria mess is about as far from brilliant as it could be. Maybe the better words are misguided, inept and amateurish.
There is truly only one word to adequately describe this idea: ridiculous. Think about all the flaws.
1. Obama has managed to shatter his base in Congress and in the country with this move. Scores of Democrats in Congress have come out against Obama's request for authorization. We are now seeing part of the anti-war movements on the left beginning to demonstrate against Obama and his plan. No rational president would intentionally demolish a part of his political support when there are so many battles coming up in the near future. Once the unity of the Democrats has been shattered, it will be much easier for there to be defectors on issues like spending, the debt ceiling, and the like.
2. Obama has managed to spend a whole week since making the request to Congress without telling the nation why it is in our national interest to strike the Assad forces in Syria. I know that the reason is that Assad used chemical weapons, but why does that use affect our national interest? There are clear answers to this question, but Obama and his folks have not been providing them. Even if the request to Congress is just a ploy, it does not make sense that the supposedly brilliant Obama who planned the ploy now wants to appear to be the bumbling Obama who cannot even state where America's national interests lie. If the goal is simply to blame Congress for the decision not to strike, there is no reason for Obama to do major damage to his public reputation at the same time.
3. Obama has also managed not to tell the country what the plan is for dealing with the Syrian situation once the strike has been carried out. Here too, there is no reason for Obama to try to look like an idiot if all he wants is to find an excuse not to strike.
4. By going to Congress the way he did, Obama managed to shock and dismay America's allies around the world. Remember, the Obamacrats made clear that we were going to strike Syria and then at the last second, Obama announced he was going to Congress. Allies who were expecting a strike were shocked by the amateurish last minute switch. Now don't get me wrong: Obama properly is seeking Congressional approval. The need for that approval, however, is not a last minute afterthought; it is a Constitutional mandate. There was no reason to mislead our allies about what we were doing. Again, there is no reason for Obama to try to alienate our friends and allies or to undermine their confidence (if any) in his leadership.
All things considered, Obama's conduct of the entire Syria mess is about as far from brilliant as it could be. Maybe the better words are misguided, inept and amateurish.
3 comments:
The theory posited sounds as good as any other out there.
The "flaws" can all be answered. I will respond to your numbered paragraphs seriatim:
1. Obama will easily be able to explain to his base after the fact that his strategy prevented war while maintaining credibility in light of the "red line" comment.
2. Obama is inept so his inability to convince is not surprising. This is especially so when his heart is not in it and he actually fears approval (that is the point of the theory as I understand it, he went to Congress knowing they would likely turn him down and give him an out because he really feared doing a risky mission with little upside, and one that he knew his base would abhor).
3. More ineptness. Also let's wait until the speech on Tuesday to be sure he doesn't do a better job than he has thus far. He may also be concerned that if he does too good a job he may convince Congress to authorize force and the panic for Obama would return.
4. I believe that Obama genuinely changed his mind after Kerry's speech on Friday the 30th of August. The U.K. refusal to go along, the terrible polls and his visceral antipathy to go to war all came together and caused him to panic and he came up with going to Congress as a way to delay at the very least, as an excuse not to bomb if they refuse to go along and as a way to blame the Republicans if that happens.
I don't know if the theory you posited has any validity. However, the flaws would appear not to disprove the theory given who Obama is and what he believes.
To hotpanera:
So you explain Obama's performance by calling him inept, but you still think that he came up with a brilliant plan to get out of having to strike Syria by sending it to defeat in Congress. As the title of the post says, "no way!"
I doubt you even believe what you wrote.
Jeff,
Inept executives concoct diabolical schemes all the time.
The more I think about the "interesting idea" that you reported on in the original post, the more it sounds plausible to me. Obama has no stomach for this (or most) conflicts. His 180 after Kerry's tough and well-received speech on August 30th seemed like panic. He could not have reasonably believed that going to Congress would likely be successful with all of his enemies on the right and strong anti-war feelings on the left, exacerbated by Iraq . If he was afraid of losing, he would have bombed as he had claimed he had the right to do. But he didn't.
Post a Comment