| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| A Breathtaking Work of Staggering Amateurishness |
| 2011-05-18 |
| In a Washington Examiner article entitled, “Obama’s 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 doesn’t reflect a precedent, there’s 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 we’re 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, you’re going to get yourself into trouble,’ he said in a recent interview with NBC News.” What we’re 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, we’re seeing amateurishness in both conception and execution. The Obama administration does not seem capable of theorizing, of geopolitical sophistication, of thinking beyond tactics—and 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 they’ve succeeded in doing is giving improvised and makeshift reasoning a bad name. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #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. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2011-05-18 21:58 |
| #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 2011-05-18 18:31 |
| #11 Don't forget President Obama's big speech on the Middle East tonight. We'll find out then exactly where he wants to be seen as standing. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2011-05-18 16:39 |
| #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. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2011-05-18 14:03 |
| #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. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2011-05-18 13:58 |
| #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. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2011-05-18 13:55 |
| #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 2011-05-18 13:43 |
| #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 2011-05-18 13:36 |
| #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. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2011-05-18 12:42 |
| #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 2011-05-18 11:31 |
| #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!! |
| Posted by: AlanC 2011-05-18 09:32 |
| #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 2011-05-18 09:02 |
| #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. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-05-18 08:14 |