Obama and the Syria conundrum

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Basically you are saying "I sitting in america, why should i care for what some idiots across the oceans feel about us". Though what you have said/feel maybe correct, but the "perception" (esp public opinion) about potus in west asia/islamic nations would be different. This will effect the way they would deal with usa. Also by not striking syria, gcc nations would feel betrayed by usa. As gcc has lot at stake if they fail to dislodge assad. Also usa public may just not care as to what happens in syria, but that may not the same with govt (though they may not say so, directly to the public )

I had mentioned the following in my previous post


But If the above thing is fine for usa, both public and govt, then well it should be fine then.
When I say "we" I mean the American entity.

Let me ask you this, what exactly is it you think will happen if the POTUS' reputation were to be damaged by not attacking Syria? What precisely will change in the way the nations you refer to in the region operate vis a vis the United States?
Your questions are already answered in the post you and quoted. I have marked them in red.

To be any more precise would require one to be one Nostradamus.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Energon

DFI stars
Ambassador
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
1,199
Likes
767
Country flag
Your questions are already answered in the post you and quoted. I have marked them in red.

To be any more precise would require one to be one Nostradamus.
The reason I asked the question is because the query itself is inherently faulty. The US made no promises to the GCC in regards to eliminating Assad, the United States has no intention whatsoever of deposing Assad. The whole plan was nothing more than blowing up some military hardware as a "punitive measure" in order to "deter Assad from using chemical weapons" but not enough to cripple his military to the point he'd be overthrown. Removing Assad from power would result in a complete regional meltdown. If the GCC countries want to depose Assad and prop up a Sunni regime (which will never survive given the utter lack of cohesion among the opposition) then they're going to have to do it themselves, and subsequently suffer the consequences if their plan ends up backfiring.

Here's the real crux of the "credibility" argument. It has nothing to do with disappointing the GCC countries. The fear is that if we don't bomb Syria then Assad will brag about having stood up to the Untied States akin to David vs Goliath and the Iranian establishment would come to the conclusion that the United States is toothless. This in turn will give them impetus to be more aggressive against Israel. This is the worst case scenario (the answer I was looking for), not a sense of betrayal by the GCC countries. All of the GCC countries are and will remain American vassals because they don't really have any meaningful leverage. The perception problem has more to do with Iran, not the GCC 6 and Jordan.

Which then brings us back to the response to that faulty reasoning which I have reiterated on multiple occasions in my previous posts. Assad's bragging has no consequence because he no longer has any streets to show off his 'street cred'. And Iran would find themselves in a big pickle were they to pursue any action against Israel under the assumption that because Obama did nothing against Syria he won't do anything about Iran; and that would be a huge folly. The real reason Obama didn't intervene in Syria is because there was nothing to gain from it. However he still has an unparalleled arsenal at his disposal and won't hesitate to turn Iran into a parking lot were they to pursue hostilities with Israel.

W.G.Ewald said:
Just his waffling on the Syrian chemical weapon "red line" shows that his words have no meaning.
How so? The "red line" was about the elimination of the chemical weapons and that is precisely what's going to happen. Furthermore the objective will be met without firing a single shot and wasting hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars. And most of all the radicalized Muslims currently fighting for the opposition will no longer have the opportunity to use mental gymnastics and blame the United States for their woes after the dust has settled. They will however remember that Putin blocked all attempts by the global community (not just the US) to take action against Assad and instead kept giving him arms which were used to slaughter even more Syrians. And then the problem will be on Putin's hands no ours.
 
Last edited:

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
The "red line" was about the elimination of the chemical weapons and that is precisely what's going to happen. Furthermore the objective will be met without firing a single shot and wasting hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars.
Now I get to throw back to you this from a few pages back.

You said

How exactly is your proposal suppose to be carried out? I saw the objectives of the proposal but no mention of the actual logistics required to undertake this venture.
:hmm:

Take your time.
 

Energon

DFI stars
Ambassador
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
1,199
Likes
767
Country flag
Now I get to throw back to you this from a few pages back.

You said



:hmm:

Take your time.
Not sure what you're trying to "throw back" :confused:

I already laid out the two critical requirements, one of which needed to be met in order to remove the chemical weapons. It was the unlikely requirement #2 that was met. I say unlikely because I wasn't expecting Assad to cooperate. But now coming to think of it I'm not sure why everyone (including me) thought this was an untenable option. Assad doesn't need chemical weapons and he would have jumped at the first chance to rid himself of the threat posed by the US due to the chemical weapons

In the end the objective was met without loss of any resource which is something all Americans should be glad about.
 
Last edited:

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
Not sure what you're trying to "throw back" :confused:

I already laid out the two critical requirements, one of which needed to be met in order to remove the chemical weapons. It was the unlikely requirement #2 that was met. I say unlikely because I wasn't expecting Assad to cooperate. But now coming to think of it I'm not sure why everyone (including me) thought this was an untenable option. Assad doesn't need chemical weapons and he would have jumped at the first chance to rid himself of the threat posed by the US due to the chemical weapons

In the end the objective was met without loss of any resource
which is something all Americans should be glad about.
You would be welcomed by Obama as one of his spinmeisters.

Assuming you know what Assad thinks and wants is a risky thing, for you and the State Department.

Saying the objective was met at this point cannot be supported.
 

Energon

DFI stars
Ambassador
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
1,199
Likes
767
Country flag
You would be welcomed by Obama as one of his spinmeisters.

Assuming you know what Assad thinks and wants is a risky thing, for you and the State Department.

Saying the objective was met at this point cannot be supported.
Face palm. Ok, lets see if we can discuss this matter without the brain draining effects of the fox news school of cognition.

First I do agree that nothing concrete has happened, so yes saying that the objective has been met is premature. Although I don't expect Assad to disrupt the removal of the chemical weapons an American attack is still very much a possibility.

Now to highlight Obama's role in all of this (because clearly you're unable to see other aspects of this issue that don't involve Obama):
In no way was he proactive in finding a peaceful solution. He took the path of jingoism as expected of all American presidents and that reflects poorly upon him. Also just to be clear, this "red line" business is not an Obama issue per se. it's an American problem. We do not elect presidents unless they make all sorts of idiotic commitments in the Middle East for the sake of Israel (in spite of the fact that all of this is counter productive).

When the Syria issue first appeared on the horizon Obama went the gung ho route. It wasn't until later when he realized that maybe this is not the best way to go because 1. lack of public support and 2. He probably became more attuned to the sheer futility of getting involved in Syria. Yet he persisted for the sake of his foot-in-mouth "red line" commitment. Him and Kerry were willing to waste the tax payer's money on a pointless endeavor just to make a point. But then Obama started stalling and backtracking by going to congress (and hedging his bets). Then Kerry made a gaffe and that led to an inadvertent potentially peaceful resolution.

Now if it's possible at all, and I know this may be very difficult for you, but let's see if we can analyze the outcome of these events as Americans.

What is the outcome if Assad does go through with total removal of chemical weapons?
1. We don't get involved in a futile conflict
2. We don't start another war which a majority of the people don't want.
3. We save a lot of money
4. The American president for once pretends like he believes in the democratic process when it comes to foreign policy
5. Islamic radicals will remember that it was Putin who supported Assad and go after him when the dust settles instead of us
6. Our silly chemical weapons issue is resolved (many more people have died and will die due to conventional weapons to which we have no commitments)

That this situation may work out without military intervention is a very good thing for the nation. Obama deserves no direct accolades for this. Yes, he was sensible in stalling, but he did it using cowardly political tricks. If he were truly a man of conviction he would have had the courage to openly say that Syria is a hopeless case and we have nothing to contribute and we ought to let the people of the Middle East handle their own problems. But he didn't. In the end he just got lucky.

Then again, nothing is set in stone yet, Assad could renege and then Obama will use the military to strike because he's just that vain.

Now, do you see how this benefits the United States or are you still hung up on Obama?
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
The reason I asked the question is because the query itself is inherently faulty. The US made no promises to the GCC in regards to eliminating Assad, the United States has no intention whatsoever of deposing Assad. The whole plan was nothing more than blowing up some military hardware as a "punitive measure" in order to "deter Assad from using chemical weapons" but not enough to cripple his military to the point he'd be overthrown. Removing Assad from power would result in a complete regional meltdown. If the GCC countries want to depose Assad and prop up a Sunni regime (which will never survive given the utter lack of cohesion among the opposition) then they're going to have to do it themselves, and subsequently suffer the consequences if their plan ends up backfiring.
Apropos the part highlighted in blue, you are correct within the precincts of what the Obama Administration has pledged publicly. What they have promised to do covertly and indirectly is a matter of speculation. I have my opinions, and we might not agree on that, but I will not attempt to settle that here.

Apropos the rest of the quote, it is a reasonable assessment by you, as of until this point, and I do not contest that. I will, however, contest that later in this post.

Apropos the remainder of your post that is unquoted, it is a rehash of things we know and what is generally assumed.

The "red line" was about the elimination of the chemical weapons and that is precisely what's going to happen. Furthermore the objective will be met without firing a single shot and wasting hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars.
Apropos the part highlighted in green, I will have to differ. The "red line" was never about chemical weapons. The "red line" was about alleged chemical weapons use by the Assad government. These two things are different. The reason I say this, is because, there have been reports, including from UN, where the rebels have been suspected of having used chemical weapons, and the Obama Administration has not even threatened to act.

Now, let us go back to the first quote on top, to the portion that is highlighted in red. If the US sincerely did not intend an overthrow of the Assad government, then they would have displayed an equal alacrity in the face of alleged chemical weapons use by the rebels. Therefore, your claim or estimate (or whatever you want to call it), that the objective of the Obama Administration is not removal of Assad, is not reasonable.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
Syrian Rebels Say Saudi Arabia Is Stepping Up Weapons Deliveries

The developments point to the delicate balance that the United States is trying to maintain. On the one hand, it is exploring a proposed deal that could create common ground with President Bashar al-Assad's main supporters, Russia and Iran, and might eventually lead to a political settlement of the Syrian civil war. On the other hand, it is keeping up military pressure on Mr. Assad and trying to avoid alienating Saudi Arabia and other gulf allies that the United States has relied on to work with the rebels.

"My sense," Mr. Hassan said, "is that the Americans are reassuring them behind the scenes."

The situation points to the many competing interests the United States is trying to balance in the Syria crisis. The Americans' stated goal in Syria is a political settlement, but that outcome is all but impossible to achieve without talking to Syria's allies. And the close association among Saudi Arabia, Qatar and rebel groups has been a source of mistrust for government supporters inside Syria and others outside the country who fear the Islamic militants who have risen to prominence on the battlefield on the strength of financing from private donors in the gulf.
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/w...arabia-is-stepping-up-weapons-deliveries.html

[HR][/HR]

@Energon, @nrupatunga, @W.G.Ewald

So what will happen if the US backs down from taking action against Assad? I think the above excerpt sheds some light. It will certainly frustrate US' allies, especially Saudi Arabia.

This excerpt might also partially answer this question, although I do not know in what sense it was used by Mr. Ewald.
How is he an empty suit?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
Now, do you see how this benefits the United States or are you still hung up on Obama?
What a cheap remark. Obama has been deceitful about Syria since before he allowed 4 Americans, including the US ambassador to Libya, to die in Benghazi. You in fact are hung up on getting Obama out of the mess he made with his own big mouth with the least amount of embarrassment to his own skinny self. You weave your story so that anything Obama has done, is doing, or will do "benefits the United States." You are the one "hung up on Obama." :dude:
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
@Energon, @nrupatunga, @W.G.Ewald

So what will happen if the US backs down from taking action against Assad? I think the above excerpt sheds some light. It will certainly frustrate US' allies, especially Saudi Arabia.
If? It already has insofar as the "red line" threats are concerned. I have been saying the US needs to keep hands off Syria for a long time. Obama and Clinton (and now Kerry) have been lying about covert support for the insurgency since the fall of Gaddafi. That history led to the sorry outcome of a threat to punish Assad directly.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,593
If? It already has insofar as the "red line" threats are concerned. I have been saying the US needs to keep hands off Syria for a long time. Obama and Clinton (and now Kerry) have been lying about covert support for the insurgency since the fall of Gaddafi. That history led to the sorry outcome of a threat to punish Assad directly.
You are correct. Obama and his retinue have already backtracked, albeit, while still making some threatening noises, which, to my mind, is being entertained by Russia, to afford the Obama Administration a graceful way out of the quicksand they have gotten themselves stuck into. In the long run, what will happen, is difficult to predict, because, the situation is fluid. So, this backtracking, might be temporary.

Let us wait and see.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
An Anchorless World

The United States, through its secretary of state and president respectively, promises an "unbelievably small" military response to the gassing of hundreds of Syrian children by President Bashar al-Assad, then vows that "the United States military doesn't do pinpricks," and then backs away. Britain abandons its closest ally at crunch time. The European Union is divided, Germany silent, France left dangling, and NATO an absentee. If there are other pillars of the trans-Atlantic alliance, do let me know.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
U.S.-Russia talks on Syria chemical arsenal begin on tense note - The Washington Post

U.S.-Russia talks over eliminating Syria's chemical weapons began here Thursday on a wary and stilted note, as Secretary of State John F. Kerry said U.S. military forces remain poised to attack Syria if a credible agreement is not rapidly reached and implemented.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad added to the tension by saying that he is willing to place his chemical arsenal under international control — but only if the United States stops threatening military action and arming rebel forces trying to unseat him.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
Charles Krauthammer: The fruits of epic incompetence - The Washington Post

The president of the United States takes to the airwaves to urgently persuade the nation to pause before doing something it has no desire to do in the first place.

Strange. And it gets stranger still. That "strike Syria, maybe" speech begins with a heart-rending account of children consigned to a terrible death by a monster dropping poison gas. It proceeds to explain why such behavior must be punished. It culminates with the argument that the proper response — the most effective way to uphold fundamental norms, indeed human decency — is a flea bite: something "limited," "targeted" or, as so memorably described by Secretary of State John Kerry, "unbelievably small."
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
Obama doesn't get to say he is tired of war - The Washington Post

...a president has no business confessing to war-weariness. Sending soldiers to war is a hard business. But President Obama knew he was going to be a war president; if that duty was too trying for him, he should not have run for reelection, because, as he has discovered, he might have to fight new wars and not merely end old ones.

For a president to confess to war- weariness is to confess weakness.

It is the business of the commander in chief to inspire, either with tempered optimism or grim determination. He fails in his duty if he tells his subordinates, his people and the world that he is weary of the burden that he assiduously sought. In their dark moments, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who presided over infinitely more consequential and bloodier wars than Barack Obama, were undoubtedly war-weary. Can anyone imagine them proclaiming it to the world?
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
Assad: Israel should be first to disarm - Israel News, Ynetnews
Syria President Bashar Assad said Thursday that Israel should be the first to disarm from weapons, since it has nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. He added that all countries in the Mideast should be held to international protocol in order to achieve stability in the region.



Syria decided to cede control of its chemical weapons because of a Russian proposal and not the threat of US military intervention, Interfax news agency quoted President Bashar Assad as saying in a Russian television interview.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top