The Washington Post has published a survey of the Senate and about 70% of the House to gauge the likely outcome of the vote on the Syria resolution. In the Senate, there are 22 senators who have announced their support, 22 who have either announced they will vote no or said that they are leaning towards voting no. There are also 56 who remain undecided. Given that president Obama's party controls the Senate, that is a pretty poor showing. Things are worse for Obama in the House. As of now, according to the Post, there are 19 who have announced their support for a resolution and 174 who have announced that they will vote against or that they are leaning towards voting against the resolution. There are 103 undecided and 139 not included in the survey (Congress is still on vacation.) Among those against the resolution are about 40% of the Democrats surveyed compared to 10% of the Democrats who are supporting the resolution.
It seems unthinkable that House Democrats would be lining up against president Obama by a 4 to 1 margin, and maybe that will change when the rest of the members return to Washington and a final vote is taken. Nevertheless, the currently announced positions of the Democrats is a testament to the total lack of leadership exhibited by Obama. When members ask about the plans for the aftermath of the missile attack and get doubletalk (which was clearly seen during the testimony by Kerry, Hagel et al. the last two days), those in Congress get nervous. Memories of the chaotic aftermath of the Iraq invasion come to the surface. When the briefings given to Congress conflict with regard to just who it is who make up the rebel forces, the Congress gets suspicious. Is it 50% al Qaeda fighters, 15% al Qaeda fighters or just a fringe of those soldiers? When even the goal of the strike is muddled, the Congress gets upset. The truth is that, like any rational person, if you are going down a dangerous trail through the wilderness, you want to have a guide who knows what he is doing. Obama is not coming across as such a guide.
The sad thing is that all it would have taken is some understanding and planning by Obama or his national security folks of what is to happen in Syria. I know that both Kerry and Hagel are not very bright, but they must have people at State and Defense who understand the problem. Also, while Susan Rice, the National Security Adviser, is another lackluster person, she does have a staff that has been through this sort of thing before. Why can't these people at least listen to their staff.
There should be detailed planning for what comes after the strike. There should be consistent information as to who makes up the rebels. There should be a clear goal for the strike set by Obama himself. These are not hard requirements to meet, but Obama is once again blowing it. Obama's international coalition, which one congressman called the "coalition of the invisible" is another manifestation of just how inept he is at international relations.
Bashir Assad deserves to be badly hurt for using chemical weapons. Those chemical weapons need to be destroyed. No country other than the USA is in a position to do that. But now, because we have such a completely inept president, it is starting to look like none of that may happen.
It seems unthinkable that House Democrats would be lining up against president Obama by a 4 to 1 margin, and maybe that will change when the rest of the members return to Washington and a final vote is taken. Nevertheless, the currently announced positions of the Democrats is a testament to the total lack of leadership exhibited by Obama. When members ask about the plans for the aftermath of the missile attack and get doubletalk (which was clearly seen during the testimony by Kerry, Hagel et al. the last two days), those in Congress get nervous. Memories of the chaotic aftermath of the Iraq invasion come to the surface. When the briefings given to Congress conflict with regard to just who it is who make up the rebel forces, the Congress gets suspicious. Is it 50% al Qaeda fighters, 15% al Qaeda fighters or just a fringe of those soldiers? When even the goal of the strike is muddled, the Congress gets upset. The truth is that, like any rational person, if you are going down a dangerous trail through the wilderness, you want to have a guide who knows what he is doing. Obama is not coming across as such a guide.
The sad thing is that all it would have taken is some understanding and planning by Obama or his national security folks of what is to happen in Syria. I know that both Kerry and Hagel are not very bright, but they must have people at State and Defense who understand the problem. Also, while Susan Rice, the National Security Adviser, is another lackluster person, she does have a staff that has been through this sort of thing before. Why can't these people at least listen to their staff.
There should be detailed planning for what comes after the strike. There should be consistent information as to who makes up the rebels. There should be a clear goal for the strike set by Obama himself. These are not hard requirements to meet, but Obama is once again blowing it. Obama's international coalition, which one congressman called the "coalition of the invisible" is another manifestation of just how inept he is at international relations.
Bashir Assad deserves to be badly hurt for using chemical weapons. Those chemical weapons need to be destroyed. No country other than the USA is in a position to do that. But now, because we have such a completely inept president, it is starting to look like none of that may happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment