In a Washington Examiner article entitled, Obamas dilemma: Why Libya and not Syria? Steven Cook of the Council on Foreign Relations is quoted as saying: It has mystified me and others as to why the administration has been so slow-footed [in Syria]. The administration certainly set a precedent in what it did in Libya . . . and now [it] seems to be passing up a tremendous strategic opportunity. Cook went on to add, No matter how hard they try to say Libya doesnt reflect a precedent, theres no doubt that it does. I think [administration officials] are confused and caught by a precedent they hoped they would never have to address.
That seems like a reasonable surmise. For weeks the administration has attempted to answer why they have involved the United States in Libya but not Syria. And it has yet to offer a coherent explanation (the argument that Assad is a reform is ludicrous).
What were seeing are the (severe) limitations of an administration that prides itself on defying traditional categories and ideologies. In 2006 Barack Obama, shortly before he announced his bid for the presidency, said he thought America should pursue a strategy no longer driven by ideology and politics but one that is based on a realistic assessment of the sobering facts on the ground and our interests in the region. He would deal with countries on a case-by-case basis. Obama had convinced himself he was empirical and pragmatic rather than rigid and ideological.
This spring, Obama officials often expressed impatience with questions about theory or about the elusive quest for an Obama doctrine, Ryan Lizza wrote in the New Yorker. One senior Administration official reminded me what the former British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan said when asked what was likely to set the course of his government: Events, dear boy, events.
Lizza went on to write: Obama has emphasized bureaucratic efficiency over ideology, and approached foreign policy as if it were case law, deciding his response to every threat or crisis on its own merits. When you start applying blanket policies on the complexities of the current world situation, youre going to get yourself into trouble, he said in a recent interview with NBC News.
What were seeing now instead is a president who has, with rare exceptions, shown startling ineptness and confusion in approach foreign policy as if it were case law. In one country after another, were seeing amateurishness in both conception and execution. The Obama administration does not seem capable of theorizing, of geopolitical sophistication, of thinking beyond tacticsand even then, its tactics are often wrong, slow, and/or weak.
The president and his team have not shown evidence of any strategic design. At the outset of the administration they took pride in ad hocery. What theyve succeeded in doing is giving improvised and makeshift reasoning a bad name.
#1
It has mystified me and others as to why the administration has been so slow-footed [in Syria].
Really? Haven't you heard how he was raised and breed in the doctrine that the worlds failures are because America is the problem? Once you grasp that basic principle then its easy to understand his goals of diminishing American power and influence. He's not going to act, for to act would repeat the 'evil' ways of which he fundamentally believes.
#2
Of all the place to take a shot, Syria is the best - Hezbollah, Iranian ally, pushing them into something like an Iraqi democracy would hugely threaten Iran's dictatorship and change the entire political landscape of the middle east taking out the last major Arab overtly hostile dictatorship.
Posted by: The Other Beldar ||
05/18/2011 9:02 Comments ||
Top||
#3
C'mon guys, can't you see the 500 lb. gorilla?
Zero can't go after Syria because that would "prove" to all the Juice haters that Zero loves the Juice and is protecting Israel.
The Obamanation cannot do anything that can, in any way, look like support for Israel. Not only would such support be politically untenable with his wanna be buddies but it is also personally unpalatable for him.
Hasn't he made this clear enough for you?
Libya is sufficiently far away from the Juice "problem" that, at the urging of the EU, he could support it. Syria??? Hah!!
#4
The practical difference between the situation in Libya and Syria is that in Libya, the opposition controlled some territory. In Syria the opposition controls no territory.
The Obama Admin probably doesn't want to admit that this is the difference because:
- it makes their 'principles' sound too much like a simple algorithm
- what if the Balochs revolted in Iran or in Pakistan? Then the 'control territory' principle would argue that the Admin would have no option but aiding the rebels.
better to leave it all wishy washy
Posted by: Lord Garth ||
05/18/2011 11:31 Comments ||
Top||
#5
LG the territory angle could play into it in a small way but the Juice angle is much more important. After all didn't seem to bother him when paying lip service in Egypt; which wasn't an active Juice hater. If Mubarak had been an Assad & an active Israel basher (like Assad) Obummer wouldn't have said a word.
#6
Yup, I'm with Alan in this analysis. Anything, anything, anything we would do to smack Syria would be seen throughout the Islamic world as being done at Israel's bidding.
I rather wish the Ruritanian air force would do the job instead.
In the meantime, Bambi needs to fish or cut bait in Libya. Either notify Congress as the War Powers Act requires or state publicly that the WPA is unconstitutional and he won't obey it. Make clear to the American people what our involvement will be. What the goals are. Dare we demand an 'exit strategy' from a Democratic president? Heh.
I feel for the Syrian people, but this is one that they have to fix themselves. We're busy, and we don't want to look like a tool right now.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/18/2011 13:36 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Trade a PR black eye with people that hate us anyway for decapitating a dictatorship that sponsors one of the largest terrorist organizations around, who is also destabilizing Lebanon and elsewhere. That is a good trade.
Who gives a crap the Arabs hate us anyway. What are they going to do, threaten us with more terrorism?
Posted by: The Other Beldar ||
05/18/2011 13:43 Comments ||
Top||
#8
TOB, you ask Who gives a crap the Arabs hate us anyway
That's easy, Obummer cares; deeply. He also cares just as much that the Muzzies don't label him a Juice lover.
#9
Libya is easier. Unlike Gaddafi, Assad has kept his air force up to date. Also, toppling Assad means the establishment of a Hamas state in Syria. Assad is certainly a Hezbollah sponsor, but it's Hamas that killed over 1000 Israelis during the Intifada.
#10
An Alawite-run Syria (actually, any non-Sunni minority will do) is one of the obstacles to the creation of the Arab superstate that the Arab masses routinely say they want. Keeping such an obstacle in place isn't necessarily a bad thing.
#12
#11 Don't forget President Obama's big speech on the Middle East tonight
Hope he does it on ESPN during the Bulls/Heat halftime. Maybe he can do it from the WH BBall court, then followed up by a little one-on-one demo? The Mooslims should like that
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/18/2011 18:31 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Tribal splits in Syria are not as favorable as they are in Libya for a stalemate. You'd be swapping one set of jackboots for another. Still, it would be nice to knock off the military leadership and Assad, if for no other reason to rock Syria back on its heels for a few years while the factions fight it out. I'd say arm the Kurds, and let them split off NE Syria. No flight "no fight" zone like Iraqi Kurdistan was. Complicates Iran's resupply of things into Syria and Lebanon. If an acceptable cost can be found for doing so.
CALLER: Hi, Rush. I heard on several occasions you mentioned Tora Bora and we turned it to 6,000 degrees, and I was actually there for that.
RUSH: You were there? I had been told -- I might get in trouble for this but I've been told -- that there were photos of Bin Laden on horseback at Tora Bora ten minutes prior to you turning the place 6,000 degrees.
CALLER: I think they mixed up a couple of days. We were there a couple of days prior to that when they -- we were working with a (unintelligible) that, as a matter of fact, had mentioned he'd seen what they thought was Osama leading troops, and we were assigned to bomb 'em. We had a weapons malfunction that kept us from putting the weapons on the target. So I think that's the day that he escaped. It was a couple days later when they brought in the C-130 and dropped that fuel air explosive that I think that's what you were referring to --
RUSH: Yeah, that's right.
CALLER: -- and we followed up. There was three of us -- I'm a B-52 pilot -- and we followed up with three of us droppin' Mark-82s, full loads of Mark 82s, so...
RUSH: Wow. You fly the BUFF.
CALLER: Yeah. I recently retired. I'm up at Edwards now as a test pilot but that was back in, I think, early December --
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: -- and the reason I called was we used to have to fly up, from where we were stationed, in order to get there. As you know, Afghanistan is landlocked, and we'd have to fly flew Pakistan to get to Afghanistan.
RUSH: At what altitude are you flying the BUFF?
CALLER: Excuse me? Oh, well, we would operate in the lower forties and sometimes around up 45 or 55,000.
RUSH: Do they have anything that can hit you at that altitude?
CALLER: Certainly not the Afghanis. There was all sorts of talk about them climbing up those big mounts and taking potshots at us with shoulder launched. We didn't believe that. The big reason I called is early on as we started to prosecute the war -- we were one of the first units to respond after 9/11, and shortly after that when we started the war -- we'd drive up what they called the "driveway" through Pakistan, and it was an agreed route that the host country would have us fly up through, and it took us over a couple of the cities in south Pakistan. Well, those bastards would bang away at us with AAA's. We'd fly over the cities and they'd --
#2
from the comments: I dont speak Spanish but doesnt Todas Somos Palestina mean We are all Palestinians?Does anybody need any further evidence that open borders mean Middle Easterners masquerading as Poor Mexicans Seeking A Better Life? Press 1 for English, my ass....
Explains the curly-toed pointy boots that are all the rage. And Muslims disrupting a Christian church service in Texas, where many carry...well DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS!!!!
#3
If this had been Christians ranting Pro-Israel slogans at a Mosque there would be three possible outcomes: 1) Severe beat down by the faithful 2) Arrested for hate crimes or 3) both. "Todas Somos Palestina NO
#4
Texas is the buckle on the Bible belt. Starting during the last year far-left wing moon bat liberals on the level of the moon bat has been picking sermons to protest out side churches that are contrary to their left wing agenda. Victims of thier assaults have been Conservative Southern Baptist churches, but also including the Catholic churches in the larger cities.
This is the first time they have actually gone into the sanctuary during a service to disrupt the sermon from beginning to the end. They are a barbaric element and in no time vandalism and assault such as what has been seen during speaches on college campuses will be their next move.
But I can guarantee you one thing. This is Texas. And the day will come when they will wish they were in hell already after a night in a county jail.
So they found a big stash of porn in Osama bin Laden's compound. I thought the whole point of terrorism was supposed to be religious or something, but apparently the terrorists are like cafeteria Muslims -- they don't subscribe to the whole Islamic tenet of clean living and instead just adhere to the blowing-up-infidels part of the religion.
It seems one of the biggest goals of Islamic terrorists -- besides pointless murder and mayhem -- is to have absolutely no redeeming qualities whatsoever. We have bleeding heart liberals who automatically side with America's enemies, but the terrorists are dead set on giving even those people absolutely nothing to hold onto. You can search and search for the terrorists to have any redeeming qualities, and the best you'll come up with is something like, "Well, one time they only kicked a puppy when they easily could have stomped it to death."
They're just pointless, useless enemies -- far more one-dimensionally vile than anything you'd find in the most hackneyed fiction. And that's a big problem for us.
America has been in a slump for a long time. We just can't get our act together and be the shining city on the hill we used to be, and I think a big part of that is terrorists. Not terrorism; terrorists -- in that they are our big enemy right now. The fact is, to achieve great heights, America needs a great villain to overcome, and as long as our big enemy is a bunch of primitive thugs servicing themselves in barren compounds, we're going to be stuck in a rut.
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
05/18/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"...it's a crying shame the way war has been handled in the last few decades. I mean, let's look at it out in the open. Let's stop this pussyfootin' around. Can you tell me why the hell we've given up on the Germans? Can you? Those damn politicians in Washington have chalked them up on our side, and the wars ever since have been a national disgrace. Hell, look at history. The two best wars this country has fought were against the Jerries. Now I say, get the Krauts back on the other side of the fence where they belong, and let's return to the kind of enemy worth killing and the kind of war this whole country can support."
-- Uncle Victor, "Harold & Maude"
#2
"America needs a great villain to overcome" - iff History is any measure, a villain worse than Osama,etal. will come along shortly during this 2011-2020/2025 time period. THE PROVERBIAL
"RIGHT BUTTONS" WERE NEVER EVAR! PUSHED, UNTIL NOW!?
#5
Substitute Native American/Indian for terrorist and you get the feel of some writers of the late 1880-90s were musing about as they prepped America for the world stage leading to the Spanish-American War to be followed by the inevitable complications of becoming involved in the fratricidal European wars of the early 20th Century.
Again, and again, the military men have seen themselves hurled into war by ambitions, passions, and blunders of civilian governments, almost wholly uninformed as to the limits of their military potentials and almost recklessly indifferent to the military requirements of the wars they let loose. Aware that they may again be thrown by civilians into an unforeseen conflict, perhaps with a foe they have not envisaged, these realistic military men find themselves unable to do anything save demand all the men, guns, and supplies they can possibly wring from the civilians, in the hope that they may be prepared or half prepared for whatever may befall them. In so doing they inevitably find themselves associated with militaristic military men who demand all they can get merely for the sake of having it without reference to ends. -
Vagts, Alfred, History of Militarism, rev. 1959, Free Press, NY, pp 34.
We do not need to seek enemies or create them for that matter simply for some weird concept that boils down to 'that which does not destroy us, makes us stronger'.
#1
Don't do the crime, don't do the time. Self control. For a culture that's headed towards outlawing tobacco, sugar, and incandescent lights, it seems to believe that making meth, crack and coke readily available is going to magically make the abusers better people and society safer and kinder. Remember that when the next rant about obese Americans comes up concerning 'health'. Strange selections in determining what your civilization is going to be known about.
#2
What a crock of crap. There was no mention of controlling the borders. I guess that would be considered racist as well because it discriminates against all those third world types who bring the drugs into this country. It would also imply that we've decided to do something about illegal immigration.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
