3 ms·

Not a perceived weakness, proof of just how terrible a negotiator he is. You should never declare a "red line" if you won't adhere to it. Think of it through a

Not a perceived weakness, proof of just how terrible a negotiator he is. You should never declare a "red line" if you won't adhere to it. Think of it through an example of a micro-negotiation. Look at parents who constantly tell their children "if you do x I'll do y" but never follow through on it. All their children do is push their boundaries to see just how much they can get away with. It totally destroys any ability to have a normal relationship built on mutual respect.

cmrdporcupine 9y ago
Perhaps more of a failure of intelligence than negotiation -- it seems the Americans at the time perceived the Russian support for Assad as lukewarm and gambled on a weaker Russian response. It seems that Obama may really have meant the red line, until it became clear too late what the cost would be.
- fortythirteen 9y ago
  I highly doubt that, since his administration was actively financing anti-Assad groups, including violent religious extremists. We've been fighting a proxy war with Russia in the Middle East for roughly seventy years and Syria has been Russia's #1 ally in the region for decades. He'd have to have his head in the sand to think that Russia would allow him to directly take out Assad's forces. He made a horrible decision that reeks of hubris, thinking that nobody would call his bluff.
nyolfen 9y ago
> Not a perceived weakness, proof of just how terrible a negotiator he is. You should never declare a "red line" if you won't adhere to it. if seymour hersh is to be believed, the ghouta attack was carried out by islamists with turkish support[1]. if this is the case, obama's (lack of) reaction makes much more sense. turkey is a nato member but stands to gain much were assad pushed out, and clear incentive to trip something over the red line. however, the actions that may be forced by revealing turkish involvement would be a political and diplomatic atom bomb. [1] https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-a...

cmrdporcupine 9y ago

Perhaps more of a failure of intelligence than negotiation -- it seems the Americans at the time perceived the Russian support for Assad as lukewarm and gambled on a weaker Russian response. It seems that Obama may really have meant the red line, until it became clear too late what the cost would be.

fortythirteen 9y ago
I highly doubt that, since his administration was actively financing anti-Assad groups, including violent religious extremists. We've been fighting a proxy war with Russia in the Middle East for roughly seventy years and Syria has been Russia's #1 ally in the region for decades. He'd have to have his head in the sand to think that Russia would allow him to directly take out Assad's forces. He made a horrible decision that reeks of hubris, thinking that nobody would call his bluff.

nyolfen 9y ago

> Not a perceived weakness, proof of just how terrible a negotiator he is. You should never declare a "red line" if you won't adhere to it. if seymour hersh is to be believed, the ghouta attack was carried out by islamists with turkish support[1]. if this is the case, obama's (lack of) reaction makes much more sense. turkey is a nato member but stands to gain much were assad pushed out, and clear incentive to trip something over the red line. however, the actions that may be forced by revealing turkish involvement would be a political and diplomatic atom bomb. [1] https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-a...