General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe President should cut his losses with his "red line" remark"...
He may have painted himself into a corner but there are worse places to be.
It is not necessary or acceptable to make any policy based on whether or not the President maintains his "credibility".
The President should explain that the "red line" remark may have been a "mistake", but if American interests are threatened, the US still retains the right to unilaterally protect our country. At the present time, the use of "chemical weapons" is unacceptable by any international standards and the US stands with our allies to punish whomever uses them. Per our Constitution, we will inform and involve the Congress in any policy that is decided upon.
Furthermore, the President should explain to the American people that we have been at war for a dozen years and they have no appetite to involve us in another war at this time. Let those that call for military actions at this time, especially the Republican leadership, explain the possible repercussions and downside in unilaterally attacking Syria.
He should explain that he stands with the American people at this time and that he stands ready to protect our nation unilaterally if the need arises. He should admit the "red line" comment was a mistake but he will not use it to maintain political credibility or to form foreign policy. He will do what is in the interest of this nation over his own political interests.
Rex
(65,616 posts)since actually making and admitting to any kind of mistake publicly would destroy the Union.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Pride comes before a fall.
jimlup
(7,968 posts)because I don't think it is acceptable for the United States to start shooting cruise missiles at people without UN security council approval. So Obama will need to finesse this one but that seems doable.
kentuck
(111,104 posts)...from the neo-liberals he has surrounded himself with? He needs to listen to new voices, in my opinion.
malaise
(269,063 posts)Excellent post
Faryn Balyncd
(5,125 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Assad' to 'even if it was chemical weapons and it was Assad we shouldn't strike.' And I bet the narrative is going to keep evolving.
Seems to me it isn't President Obama painting himself into a corner.
delrem
(9,688 posts)That "narrative" hasn't changed.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)understanding of Assad. This is not illogical for him...not at all, when you look at what he did during the occupation of Lebanon.
He is a doctor...and a sociopath who hires American PR firms to preserve and protect his image--
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/11/world/middleeast/syrian-conflict-cracks-carefully-polished-image-of-assad.html?_r=3&smid=tw-share&
pampango
(24,692 posts)Likewise, the regime clearly is seeking to terrify the population into submission. Again, Saddam Hussein tried that with the Kurds and Shiites. Mass killings of restive populations by a regime raise the cost of insurgency, the regime hopes to unacceptably high levels. Could the Baath have done this? This is the regime that slaughtered at least 10,000 at Hama in 1982, so sure.
http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/killing-hundreds-obamas.html
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)I doubt anybody here doubts the word of Doctors without Borders.
The narrative has been let the UN do their job, and don't do anything unless you can prove it was Assad.
It is the White House that has migrated from "Assad did it" to "even if he didn't do it, he was responsible." With only the word of Israel as evidence.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)to argue against it as we march toward it. I think the consistent argument that most have put forward is that an attack will not improve the situation. It will kill more and cause some devastating counter attacks and a unpredictable domino effect.
That has been the consistent position. Within that position, questions have been raised due to what is known and not about the chemical attack. Allowing the UN inspectors to do their jobs had always been the first choice.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I've consistently heard that no one wants ground troops in Syria. If that's the case, then what are we left with?
Cruise missile/other air attacks: OK, we can launch cruise missiles, but where do we shoot them? I've seen some people suggest that we aim for chemical weapons stockpiles. Even supposing these stockpiles were above ground and easy to see, I think this would be a horrible plan, for reasons that are too obvious to go into.
We could try to kill Assad and other Syrian military leadership. They know this. When the missiles start to fly, they just have to hide somewhere deep for 3 or 4 days. We may kill some, and we may end up accidentally killing civilians instead. It's reasonable to think that Assad and crew can hide out for the few days that the bombing campaign would presumably last.
We could also try to hit strategic military targets. But 100 cruise missiles over 3 days isn't going to destroy Syria's military infrastructure.
And then what happens? We've shot a bunch of missiles. More missiles won't do much good. It's time to either send in troops, or watch everyone from the GOP to the world press laugh at the hubris and stupidity on display. I think Obama understands this. I'm guessing he wishes he had a way out of this. I'm also guessing he wishes he'd never said anything about red lines.
kentuck
(111,104 posts)They have no idea just how strong is Assad? Will the rebels look at any American attack, no matter how small, to throw him off the train?
Then, we might have Hezbollah (Iran) looking to take over power in that country and the instability would be the worst thing for Israel, our number one ally in that region.
Second thoughts are in order.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)which would be insanity.
They plan to bomb military infrastructure and airplane runways. And of course, surgical strikes never miss their targets, especially when they are close to civilians. Their targets are primarily in and around Damascus.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)them come back to town and vote to do so. Otherwise the President has some very good reasons to erase his red line.
1. Our economy is on the rebound. Attacking Syria would kill it.
2. We have no real partner in Syria. Since we don't have any assurances on who will replace Asaad if he is ousted.
3. None of neighboring countries to Syria will cooperate with us and will not allow us use their land, sea, or airways.
4. We would be contributing to killing or devastating already suffering women and children and making it so that their country would become a wasteland further harming their own economy.
5. AQ will have a field day exploiting the evil empire.
6. No telling what Israel would do to Palestinians under cover of our attacks.
7. The GOP is going to exploit this situation either way Obama decides so at least he should make the decision to not inflict more punishment on innocent people and make more enemies for us.
8. He would be respecting the sovereignty of a nation instead of playing the arrogance card that has not served us well in the past.
9. For once, a President would be putting the interests and well-being of the American people ahead of the interests of the neo-con, PNACers who would love to see a smoldering ME.
10. It would be a momentous event to admit to making a mistake...a sign of real strength, not weakness.
Hulk
(6,699 posts)I'll take the blame. I shoved my hand up his behind and made him say the stupid remark on "crossing the red line". I'M the one you can blame. I'll take it to my grave. Now, spare us the disaster of attacking Syria with anything but humanitarian aid.
How do we win the hearts of the Muslim world that ALREADY HATES US?? More bombs? I think not. Try humanitarian aid to the refugees. Makes all the sense in the world.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)They'll vote it down. Then he can save face by saying it was congress.
As a second-order benefit it would saddle the GOP with the precedence that you cannot unilaterally go to war and if congress says "No!" you stay home.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)Not backing down from this asinine posturing to save face for saying something truly regrettable, would be the largest blunder of Obama's entire political career.
There is ONE and only ONE person on this planet that can single-handedly stop this insanity in it's tracks. Failure to do so, would be catastrophic in a multitude of ways.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)to do whatever he wants..... maybe now he can gas some more kids at his leisure.
kentuck
(111,104 posts)"At the present time, the use of "chemical weapons" is unacceptable by any international standards and the US stands with our allies to punish whomever uses them. Per our Constitution, we will inform and involve the Congress in any policy that is decided upon. "
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)cut off his imported tea? Oh yea that will teach him!
kentuck
(111,104 posts)That would teach him a lesson??
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)That should take care on it!
kentuck
(111,104 posts)When do you want to do that? Do you want to wait on the UN inspectors to get out and give the evidence they find? Could you envision any repercussions from such an act?
Obama already has the UN inspectors evidence.
Best Repercussion will be they can get back to their little civil war. but he will not gas anymore children.
obxhead
(8,434 posts)Set clear guidelines as to where the line actually is and what the specific responds will be. Let the entire government decide on a path instead of Obama acting like a king and doing as he pleases.
I've been told time and again here on DU that Obama is restricted by Congress. That door should swing both ways.
kentuck
(111,104 posts)and put the war-making powers back into the hands of Congress, as our founders intended.
obxhead
(8,434 posts)I've heard this story before with another conflict. It started with a V I think. Give me a minute, it will come to me.
cant get it up to help kids who are being gassed by this asshole Assad..... no much you can get it up for !
obxhead
(8,434 posts)How about the kids dying in Chinese sweat shops building the $3 trash we buy in Walmart? How about the kids dying right here at home from starvation and abuse?
Yeah it sucks that gas was used. It sucks kids died. It really sicks to live within a civil war. That doesn't mean this needs to see missiles and bombs fly that will kill yet more innocent people.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)different motivations. and level of evil.
quakerboy
(13,920 posts)Your argument would seem to boil down to "Greed is less evil than powerlust, when it comes to killing children".
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)has everything to do with it. If you are targeted to be tortured and killed is not the same thingy as being hired for a job and dying of in some accident .!
quakerboy
(13,920 posts)as opposed to being specifically picked for punishment, you suffer less? Your family is less griefstricken? When a hundred people die in a factory due to purposefully unsafe conditions, it is less evil than when a dictator kills a hundred people to try and maintain his regime?
Intent and motive have little to do with it. It is actions and results that matter. If you knowingly contribute to killing children, you kill children, whether you do it by buying oil from Syria or clothing from India or diamonds from Africa.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)to say things I did not write. geez
Seems it is getting harder and harder for you to find any justification to defend your Premise.
quakerboy
(13,920 posts)Harder and harder to find any justification. Indeed.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)obxhead
(8,434 posts)The only real difference is the products sitting under or flowing over the ground.
If Darfur had an oil pipeline we would have saved those kids. If parents had oil under their yard we would probably save those kids.
It is tragic, but don't kid yourself. Any reaction at all doesn't concern the kids in any way.
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)love your Logic
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)The GOP House has not done anything for the last three years..... Im sure they could get the job done,,,,, geeez...
obxhead
(8,434 posts)If 91% hates the idea maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't do it. Let the R's be weak on atrocity and be called out on it!
Cryptoad
(8,254 posts)it about an asshole gassing children......nothing more nothing less
squicked
(18 posts)Don't think for one minute they aren't considering elections next year and 2016. They'll fumble the ball to congress and "Bomb Bomb McCain" won't run with it. All the commercials will show the republicans lied the country into war with Iraq but didn't have the balls to save innocent children... this will freakin crush republicans!!!
totodeinhere
(13,058 posts)even one mistake? Of course he was a jerk and people laughed at him over that. But people of character admit when they made a mistake and then move on. If President Obama admits that his red line comment was a mistake I think that most of us will have his back and we will respect him for doing the right thing. Of course he would get some flack form the Republicans but that will happen no matter what he does so the president may as well as you put it cut his losses.
Amonester
(11,541 posts)to gas more children, men, women, elders et al
And he would feel 'guilty' about it for years.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Then he is good to go. Wash his hands of it. Russia then looks like they don't care about red lines.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)My fellow Americans, today I come before you to tell you I made a grave error. I stated that the use of chemical weapons was a red line that should not be crossed. Now that I see the bloodshed and horrors caused by chemical weapons I tell you it isn't that bad. Mr. Assad is a kind and gentle man and will take care of his people and if he chooses to use chemical weapons, well that's his business. I believe the whole thing was a misunderstanding and I apologize. The United States will sit idly by and watch people die because we don't care, it isn't our problem, and it isn't our fault. Thank you and God Bless these United States of America.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)My fellow Americans, today I come before you to tell you I reaffirm my position on the use of chemical weapons. I stated that the use of chemical weapons was a red line that should not be crossed. Now that I see the bloodshed and horrors caused by chemical weapons I implore the UN to intervene in the atrocities in Syria. Mr. Assad is thought by immoral entities to be a kind and gentle man and will take care of his people, and if he chooses to use chemical weapons, well that's his business. I believe that is an immoral position and I stand in front of the world today, alone, might I add, that chemical weapons use crosses a line. The United States will sit idly by and watch people die because we care about international opinion, but let it be known from this day forward that while chemical weapons use is a problem for this planet, the use of those weapons as defined in the Chemical Weapons Convention isn't our fault. We've destroyed 90% of our stockpiles and may they never be used on any world citizens in the future. Thank you and God Bless these United States of America.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)I was being semi-serious because I don't think his options are completely limited here or that he's boxed himself in or whatever.
malaise
(269,063 posts)Barack_America
(28,876 posts)I will never fault anyone for stating so.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Out of any option...that is absolutely one of the worst I have ever heard.