Wattree's picture

    Reflections on President Obama’s Speech on Syria

    By Wattree on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 2:18am |

    Beneath the Spin * Eric L. Wattree

    Reflections on President Obama’s Speech on Syria
    .
    After listening to the president’s speech on the Syrian affair, my position remains the same. He should throw this issue in the lap of congress, and thereafter, follow their prescription. The primary reason for that is, for the past four years it has been clearly demonstrated that he’s dealing with an irresponsible Republican congress, so regardless to what he does on his own initiative, or how it turns out, they’re going to say it was wrong. They’ll then completely ignore any precedents set by the Clinton or Bush administrations and conjure up articles of impeachment against Obama - as was so helpfully suggested by Cornel West - in order to sabotage and distract from any initiatives that he might have planned for his second term.
    .
    Another reason that the president should place this issue in the lap of congress is to force congress to act responsibly by giving them a vested interest in bringing the country together behind whatever action we take. The United States is between a rock and a hard place on Syria. It’s one of those issues where there is no right thing to do. If we don’t act, we’ll lose face with U.S. allies. That could cause them to lose faith in the United States’ commitment to protect their security, and thereby, cause them to have second thoughts about standing behind the United States when our own security is in jeopardy in the region.
    .

    On the other hand, if we do take action against Syria, we have to deal with the possibility of unintended consequences. One of the big mistakes the United States makes when dealing with people from other countries is that we assume that everyone thinks like we do. That’s a mistake. People from other countries have different religions, and therefore, different motivations. So while President Obama may plan on ordering a limited air strike as an admonishment to Syria to behave, Bashar al-Assad may feel under siege and go for broke.
    .
    He’s a part of the Alawite religion, a very small sect of Islam. They constitute only 12% of Syria, and they’re beliefs are kept so close to the vest that they’re secret from even other branches of Islam. So we don’t know what this guy is capable of. He may launch biological weapons into Israel and start an all-out regional conflict.
    .
    President Obama has all of this information, so for some to suggest that he’s just anxious to go running off to war against some unknown quantity, is simplistic thinking at best. As he mentioned in his speech, he’s weighing options. The president said the following:
    .
    "If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas and using them. Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield, and it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons and to use them to attack civilians."
    .
    That’s a serious matter to be considered, and so is the following:
    .
    "If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan and Israel. And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran, which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon or to take a more peaceful path."
    .
    So it’s easy to run around and rant about this "warmongering’ president, but the people who are out searching for cameras to run their mouths in front of are not concerned about any of these issues. All they’re concerned about is getting media exposure, and if you specifically ask them about these issues, they probably wouldn’t even know what you were talking about - if they do, they certainly haven’t come up with any suggestions on how we should handle the situation. That’s the difference between wagging your tongue and governing - when governing you have to come up with solutions.
    .
    The majority of us voted for President Obama, not because we expected him to do everything that we wanted him to do, but because he’s a serious-minded adult whose judgment we trust; and in this big stakes chess match, he’s managed to stand firm, just as we voted for him to do - so firm, in fact, that Russia and China, Assad’s two major allies are beginning to blink. As a result, the president was able to report the following:
    .
    "However, over the last few days, we’ve seen some encouraging signs, in part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action, as well as constructive talks that I had with President Putin. The Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons. The Assad regime has now admitting that it has these weapons and even said they’d join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use."
    .
    Now, that’s what it means to be a president.
    .
    Eric L. Wattree 
    Http://wattree.blogspot.com
    [email protected]
    .
    Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

    Comments

    I thought the President's speech was good.  I had to turn off the TV afterwards because I was not happy with the talking heads remarks.  They simply got on my nerves.  Putin is being pushed to take things in hand.  He don't like having to do that but it is in his backyard. There is a bigger danger that it will hurt him more then us.  Let Putin complain all he wants in our media.  He better get all the WMD's out of Syria before we make air strikes or before it lands on the other side of the Caspian Sea in the wrong hands.  A few days ago I commented that I was glad that our President dumped this on Congress here on another thread.  Let them own this decision. 


    by trkingmomoe on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 4:16am

    TRK,

    We’re on the exact same page. But it’s really sad that the president doesn’t have adults in congress to help manage government affairs. I hope that history makes note of the fact that President Obama had to run the government completely alone.


    by Wattree on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 7:10am

    Congress is going to look all kinds of funny if they attempt any vote. Legislators who would love to strike any country in the Middle East on any other day will be compelled to reject action simply because of their hatred for Obama. McCain and Graham will be for violence but against the way Obama wants to do violence. Others will want UN backing despite the fact that Russia has a waiting veto in the UN Security Council. 

    As the punditry praises Putin as peacemaker, all the WH has to do is point people to the Google (or Bing / Safari)  to let people see Putin's humanitarian record and the roadblocks he put up to earlier US-Russian peace talks on Syria.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 8:08am

    Meanwhile the great humanitarian Putin overseas rampant homophobia encouraged by new legislation.


    by rmrd0000 on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 8:21am

    Focus, people, focus. This is not about -- and should not be about -- credit or credibility or whether Putin is a good guy or America is right to call itself exceptional. There's a bloody civil war going on. Removing chemical weapons from the mix is at least a tiny step to winding the violence down. An agreement on that could facilitate convening of the peace talks that the Russians have been pushing for months. Why not give diplomacy a fighting chance?


    by acanuck on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 2:19pm

    Yeah I will buy this argument.

    As they just reminded us all on MSNBC Russia has some exerience dealing with Muslims--since there are 25 million Muslims who live in Russia today.

    And as I stated elsewhere, the nation with the second biggest cache of wmd's in the world is Russia.

    Just as an aside, there was Pat Robertson squinting again on his children's show praying that the Almighty destroy all Muslims.

    There are a billion and a half Muslims in this world.

    We must deal with the Russians and the Muslims and the Indians and the Chinese...

    What is is; whether we like it or not.

    Reality has to set in somewhere in our foreign policy.


    by Richard Day on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 4:03pm

    Acanuck,

    You write here, I believe for the second time in two days, that the Russians have been pushing for peace talks for months.  Have you a citation for that?  My understanding is that on May 7, 2013, Kerry and his Russian counterpart jointly announced their support of an international peace conference.  What are you referring to?  Many thanks in advance.

     

     


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 6:34pm

    Putin and propaganda go hand in hand. There are no citations that Russia has been pushing for peace talks, because of course they haven't. They do what they always do, tell the UN Security Council that they will flout the rest of the committee. OK.

    But according to the National Post a Canadian Paper, Russia since 2012 has been impeding or stalling Peace talks. 

    If people are taking Putin seriously, well... I don't know what to say about that, except that the evidence seems to say something else.


    by tmccarthy0 on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 6:57pm

    Putin leads Russia.  What he says matters.  I will give him that, but certainly nothing more.  For example, if he is such a genius, how come he didn't know how much damage he would do to his "cause" among the American People by his op-ed in today's New York Times?  That is not the move of a very smart person.  One thing that unites we fickle Americans, or most of us, is criticism from folks across the pond.  Canada gets a pass Ack (and yes, I can find Canada on a map).  We love you guys and listen to you.

     


    by Bruce Levine on Thu, 09/12/2013 - 7:29pm

    Actually, turns out your complaint might more appropriately be made to American-based PR firm, Ketchum, which helps Putin craft his international message. See The Atlantic Wire: Vladimir Putin's Complicated History as an Op-Ed Columnist.


    by artappraiser on Fri, 09/13/2013 - 1:08am

    The NYTimes confirms it to The Guardian (also more there on the Russia/Ketchum relationship, and at what stage the piece might have been written.)


    by artappraiser on Fri, 09/13/2013 - 1:39am

    May was when the peace talks everyone says they want were originally supposed to start. But nobody was in a particular hurry, because all sides were sure time was on their side. Here's what Wikipedia says:

    "The Geneva II Middle East peace conference (or Geneva II) is a proposed United Nations (UN) backed peace conference that would take place in Geneva in late 2013 with the aim of stopping the Syrian civil war[1] and organising a transition period and post-war reconstruction.[2][3] In a previous Geneva meeting on 30 June 2012, "major powers" agreed on the principle of a political transition, "but failed to stop the war".[1]

    "... The conference was initially proposed for the end of May 2013, with participation expected by representatives of the Syrian National Coalition, the Bashar al-Assad government of Syria, the United States and Russia, and coordination by Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN peace envoy for Syria.[4]In late June, the United States (US) postponed the conference."

    Over at the thread "Putin -- don't play me" I cite an article explaining why the U.S. scuppered the peace plan at that point: the Assad government had regrouped militarily, and the opposition began losing ground. Splits between the jihadi militants and the more moderate rebels deepened, and they couldn't agree on a unified delegation.

    So they refused to meet with the regime as long as Assad was in charge. They called for more outside arms in order to balance the negotiating field. Which brings us roughly to where we are today -- with the rebels hoping the WMD deal fails, and that a U.S. attack will degrade Syria's military enough that they win.

    That means the war would go on, and thousands more would die. My ideal solution would be peace talks leading to a safe haven for the Assads, and a transition govt bringing together the moderate Sunni opposition with the Alawites, Christians and secularists who have been backing the regime. The jihadis would take that as a betrayal, so the Syrian military needs to be kept intact and functioning to drive them out of the country.

    An extremely difficult balancing act would be required, and my fear is that that asshole Kerry would screw it up, much as he is about to screw up any chemical-weapons deal.

    (Putin's critique is spot-on, by the way.)


    by acanuck on Fri, 09/13/2013 - 12:23am

    Those innocent Russians were shipping weapons to Syria. that was the reason talks got scuttled


    by rmrd0000 on Fri, 09/13/2013 - 12:33am

    Right, and the Saudis and Qataris weren't sending weapons and actual jihadi fighters to the rebels? There are no innocents in this kind of brutal business, and I haven't claimed there are.


    by acanuck on Fri, 09/13/2013 - 2:34am

    Thank you for this response Ack.  I appreciate it.

    I do think that your description of what happened in June understates the entry of Hezbollah directly in the fighting at that time and fwiw it has to be considered as an escalation of the war to a new dimension, that is it is difficult to begin peace talks at a time when iran's proxies enter the fray and begin, as you say, to change the facts to favor Assad.  So it's not Assad's forces beginning to win I guess, unless you assume that Assad and not Iran is in control of Hezbollah.  

    Here's an interesting Reuter's piece from June 25 addressing the state of events at the time.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/25/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE95O0LQ2...

    I do think that your point about rebel disagreement among the various factions is a point that most of us haven't paid adequate attention to.  

    Thanks again.  I really do hope we can have some colloquies like we once did Ack.  I'm not sure what specifically happened. But it was a loss to me in terms of the richness of the dialogue when I sensed a change.   It's the season  to reflect for me so if you're the more stoic type hang in there.  But if it was something I wrote that offended you I hope you can forgive me and that we can start off with a clean slate.  

    I have spent an entire career developing enduring friendships with folks I do battle with continuously and in situations that have real consequences for real people.  I think it's a model I would like to think that should work here too.  If we're all on the same page then what do we learn?

    P.S. This is it for me through Sunday.  Court this AM and speech writing for tomorrow to explain Leviticus 16 to several hundred hungry and cranky fasting Jewish folks.  Court will be a breeze in comparison.

    Peace.

    Bruce

     


    by Bruce Levine on Fri, 09/13/2013 - 7:24am

    Bruce, I can't recall anything you wrote that I took personal offense at. I too have bargained a collective agreement or two, so my skin is pretty thick. I may have skipped commenting on some threads that seemed to be generating more heat than light, but that's a rule I try to apply across the board, not to individual dagbloggers. Anyway, I'm pretty sure you're all atoned out after this weekend. Relax, no need for an addendum. We're good. 


    by acanuck on Mon, 09/16/2013 - 2:25am

    Thanks ack.  Maybe some day when the dust settles (I'm buried because I'm in the process of moving in-house to a client) we can do a collaborative thing comparing labor relations in Canada and the US.  Could be a real eye-opener for some.


    by Bruce Levine on Mon, 09/16/2013 - 10:40am

    Acanuck, I'm late to this thread, but very well put. An eye opener. And thanks for your comments on my Putin thread. Your description of the peace talk sequence is the most succinct I have seen anywhere.


    by Oxy Mora on Fri, 09/13/2013 - 2:39pm

    The Home page doesn't show any comments on this post. Then I come here and there are all these comments. The very same is true of another one of my posts.  What's up with that?  Hmmm ... 


    by Wattree on Sat, 09/14/2013 - 11:10pm

    Latest Comments