General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhite House Syria Deliberations: 'Do Less' Camp is Still Winning
White House Syria Deliberations: 'Do Less' Camp is Still Winning
BY JULIA IOFFE
That said, this is what we do know. As always, the administration is split on action in Syria, and on what, if anything, should be done. General Martin Dempsey is largely against intervention. Samantha Power, U.N. Ambassador and author of A Problem from Hell, a scathing attack on powers that sit by in the face of slaughter, wants to do something. Looking at the roster of the fifteen people at the President's meeting to discuss the Syria crisis, they split roughly in two: the do more camp, and the do less camp. "People have been pretty stable in their positions," said a source familiar with the situation. "I dont think anyone has changed their position."
The lone exception was Kerry, who had pushed for action on Libya, but has been hesitant on Syria: he has been gunning for that peace conference in Geneva. Today, he was likely trotted out to give the President some cover as the U.N. inspectors finish their workand get the hell out of Syria before the fireworks start.
By Monday evening, the policy was still very much up in the air, but the "do less" camp seemed to be winning, probably because of Obama's notorious reluctance on such things. The outlines of what the Obama administration is likely to do was starting to take shape: the U.S. would likely act, but it would act mostly to impose a sense of consequence, stopping short of doing something obviously designed to shift the balance inside Syria between Assad and the motley rebel crew. Envisioned thus, U.S. military action would probably target things like the headquarters of airforce intelligence or other targets associated with the distribution of chemical weapons, but would probably spare Assad's deadly air force. That is, it would do enough damage to show the world that Obama's word is bond, that a red linehowever accidentally drawn, however tardily noticedis a red line, but would stop short of weakening Assad enough to let some increasingly shady people topple him. Retaliating for chemical weapons use, says one administration official, "would not be because of a desire to intervene in Syria, but to prevent future chemical weapons use."
snip
Ultimately, whatever the White House decidesand it will do so painstakingly, almost theatrically so, to demonstrate that, unlike its predecessors, it has not rushed heedless into another Mulsim warit is likely to be limited and surgically precise in its message to Assad: you can go on killing people in your murky civil war, just not with chemical weapons, well, not on a large scale.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114474/white-house-syria-deliberations-do-less-camp-still-winning
pscot
(21,037 posts)but if the intent is to give Assad a bloody nose, then back off, I can live with it.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)BeyondGeography
(40,065 posts)This is how Presidents age.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)and bomb some other, emptier spot.
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)... family back in Syria:
I guess those folks in the second tweet are going to be a bit disappointed if this story is accurate.
Also, persistent, steady stream of tweets re artillery being moved into residential neighborhoods and prisoners being moved to potential targets. I expect to see a flood of threads here when the strikes start with nice, graphic images of "collateral damage". Oh joy.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)monger? And how some Democrats said 'see, she's a monster and Obama is a peace maker who'd end all the wars!!!!!'
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)lessened learned should be " do not draw red lines,ever".