So Obama has decided he doesn’t like being out on a limb by himself — he’ll wait until Congress is back in session to do anything in Syria. Presumably he will at least get some political support? In the meantime the Syrian army and intelligence and security agencies are moving to locations where they will have human shields to help protect them.
A number of countries are quietly urging to take action now — even more decisive action than Obama is willing to take. But, of course, they have no intention of sharing the risk.
The whole fiasco gets more and more interesting.
What ‘fiasco’?
When it comes to political opinions it’s often difficult to make out what the other is saying.
Are YOU saying that Syria should be ‘dealt with’? Surely not. The USA have to learn to keep their fingers out of pies that are none of their business, were never cooked for them, are far too hot, possibly indigestible.
Look after your own backyard first before mowing someone else’s lawn best advice I can give.
U
The fiasco is Obama did not want to get involved in Syria, but he stupidly drew the red line. Now he’s afraid to back down and getting involved will no doubt be worse.
You might like this photo. Not surprisingly it’s gone viral.
Attacking Syria accomplishes nothing good. Already considered a pariah state, Syria will not change course because of a few cruise missiles. Bashar Assad and those responsible in his his regime for the use of weapons of mass destruction against citizens of Syria should be charged with crimes against humanity through the International Criminal Court. That will not change anything either, but it is more constructive than launching missiles.
The argument is that if Obama backs down then he will lose all credibility with Iran and North Korea. His “allies” won’t feel he has their backs. That’s why he was stupid to declare himself the policeman of the world. There’s a big difference between defending oneself and punishing one side of a civil war for stepping over some bounds. He keeps saying he’s not trying to overthrow Assad, just punish him for using chemical weapons. Bad precedence. Does that mean when some other country (say China) gets powerful enough it will punish us for killing so many civilians with our drone attacks?
I guess by passing it off to Congress, he can “back down” without losing face. I’m not sure about the status of his international credibility.
Hopefully Congress will say no and give him some excuse. Attacking Assad would only weaken us further.
Obama tried to put pressure on the military in Egypt to be less harsh on its civilians, but Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Israel urged the military to crack down hard on the Muslim Brotherhood. One thing we thought we had as leverage was the $1.3 (? I’ve also read $1.5) billion we give to Egypt each year. And it wouldn’t help to take that away because Saudi Arabia promised, with the help of other Muslim countries, to more than make up for the loss. This is the same Saudi Arabia that is upset that we haven’t already overthrown Assad. Interesting mess. As the saying goes, countries don’t have friends, they have interests.
I agree Mike
Thanks for clarifying your view, Jean.
Your (first) response to Mike excellent. Obama lost respect (in Europe) some time ago. The icing on the cake being the hot and shameful pursuit of two young men who lifted the lid. I am sure you know who I am referring to. Judging by yesterday’s (1 Sept) papers it doesn’t matter what Congress says (and they have decided against it). The ball appears to be still in Obama’s court since an American president can override any such decision at his discretion. Leaves me scratching my head. What was that little exercise for then? Other than either buying himself time (now that the British parliament has vetoed the notion).
U
Obama doesn’t want to get involved in Syria, and he knows the majority of Americans don’t either. I don’t know if he’s hoping Congress will give him an excuse to back down, or if he just wants other people to stick their necks out too. Some of his advisers are still saying he has to do something or lose all credibility. “World leaders” aren’t supposed to say they made a mistake. But how can you be a world leader if no one is following you?
Yes, I assume I know which young men you’re talking about. They ruined our illusion that we were better than the enemy when it comes to hacking, spying on friends, etc. That didn’t improve our credibility, did it?
There were two popular “psywar sentences” during presidential election in Indonesia to satirize each other, in terms of decision-making.
The first candidate said: the faster, the better.
The second candidate said: more correct, more better.
So, which one you choose?
I would say the more correct the better. That doesn’t mean I would trust the candidate.
Are people where you are concerned at all about what is happening in the Middle East? What do you think? Would you choose Assad for stability? I assume you think the U.S. should stay out of Syria?
Thank you so much for commenting. It’s been a long time.
First, I agree with Mike.
Second, it’s better for the USA to ask Arab League Organization to solve the problem of their fellow, or pass this decision to UN.
I agree, and so do the majority of Americans. It will be interesting to see what Congress does.
If Congress think smart, they should pass this decision to UN, FOR A BETTER AMERICA. It does not mean not care. If UN say “take action”, let get involved.
The UN can’t take action because Russia and China are against it and have veto power in the Security Council.
I mean the UN General Assembly or the International Court of Justice, not Security Council which has been flooded by interests. That’s why I had a post titled “Veto VS Democracy”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/09/03/teju-coles-9-questions-about-britain-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/
😀