3 ms·

>When President Obama changed course and decided not to press forward unilaterally on planned strikes against Bashar Al Assad’s regime, he was effectively heedi

>When President Obama changed course and decided not to press forward unilaterally on planned strikes against Bashar Al Assad’s regime, he was effectively heeding that constitutional catechism. Congress and the public had signaled their opposition to military action, and Obama responded by acknowledging the need for congressional support. After decades of presidents ordering foreign interventions without consulting the House and Senate, his move represented a dramatic and welcome reversal It is disingenuous to claim that Obama is "bold" for not proceeding with a ridiculously ineffective plan opposed by the overwhelming majority of all Americans, up to and including his own wife, especially after Obama persisted in pushing it despite all that opposition. Further, is the author forgetting Libya? Obama didn't wait for congressional support then. Claiming Obama is heeding or has heeded a "constitutional catechism" is absurd.

knowaveragejoe 13y ago
Obama didn't have to wait for congress in the case of Libya, he already had their support.
- dantheman 13y ago
  Congress never authorized anything regarding libya.
  - knowaveragejoe 13y ago
    They may never have authorized anything as would be necessary for a more escalated conflict, but they certainly supported intervention: > 1 March 2011: The US Senate unanimously passes non-binding Senate resolution S.RES.85 urging the United Nations Security Council to impose a Libyan no-fly zone and encouraging Gaddafi to step down. The US had naval forces positioned off the coast of Libya, as well as forces already in the region, including the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise.
acjohnson55 13y ago
To me, the situation appears to have been carefully constructed to have avoided any realistic probability of warfare against Syria.
- roc 13y ago
  In retrospect it appears almost orchestrated -- from Obama's push for strikes, to Kerry's press conference 'fumble' [1] -- given how clearly and cleanly it allowed Russia/Syria to concede to world demands without losing face. (Indeed by appearing to be the bigger/better/more sane people.) [1] Wherein Kerry facetiously offered the supposedly-unacceptable path to avoiding conflict, allowing Putin to 'call' that bluff by actually agreeing to it.
  - jlgaddis 13y ago
    > In retrospect it appears almost orchestrated ... I remember thinking, as it was all unfolding, that it all seemed planned out well in advance and that the way everything happened was just a bit too "convenient" (not sure if that's the right word I want to use).
  - acjohnson55 13y ago
    Exactly. Let's not forget the "oops, sooo the British actually aren't with us on this one" part either. But everyone sacrifices a little bit to gain something much more important. - Obama took one on the chin and temporarily looked inept, but in the long run, no one will remember the war he didn't start, and both parties get to forget about that awkward time they were forced to advocate for positions opposite of traditional party lines. - Russia lost a the ability to prevent any action against its increasingly isolated stoolpidgeon, but got some much needed diplomacy cred, and a distraction from its very public human rights issues. - Assad doesn't risk provoking a multilateral military action against his government, but also gains a pretext to prevent proliferation of weapons that have become a huge liability, and some much needed legitimacy as the "grownup" in Syria. I'm not a new world order guy, but I do absolutely think that there are times when unfriendly nations work through the backchannels to prevent things that are just awful for everyone.

knowaveragejoe 13y ago

Obama didn't have to wait for congress in the case of Libya, he already had their support.

dantheman 13y ago
Congress never authorized anything regarding libya.
- knowaveragejoe 13y ago
  They may never have authorized anything as would be necessary for a more escalated conflict, but they certainly supported intervention: > 1 March 2011: The US Senate unanimously passes non-binding Senate resolution S.RES.85 urging the United Nations Security Council to impose a Libyan no-fly zone and encouraging Gaddafi to step down. The US had naval forces positioned off the coast of Libya, as well as forces already in the region, including the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise.

acjohnson55 13y ago

To me, the situation appears to have been carefully constructed to have avoided any realistic probability of warfare against Syria.

roc 13y ago
In retrospect it appears almost orchestrated -- from Obama's push for strikes, to Kerry's press conference 'fumble' [1] -- given how clearly and cleanly it allowed Russia/Syria to concede to world demands without losing face. (Indeed by appearing to be the bigger/better/more sane people.) [1] Wherein Kerry facetiously offered the supposedly-unacceptable path to avoiding conflict, allowing Putin to 'call' that bluff by actually agreeing to it.
- jlgaddis 13y ago
  > In retrospect it appears almost orchestrated ... I remember thinking, as it was all unfolding, that it all seemed planned out well in advance and that the way everything happened was just a bit too "convenient" (not sure if that's the right word I want to use).
- acjohnson55 13y ago
  Exactly. Let's not forget the "oops, sooo the British actually aren't with us on this one" part either. But everyone sacrifices a little bit to gain something much more important. - Obama took one on the chin and temporarily looked inept, but in the long run, no one will remember the war he didn't start, and both parties get to forget about that awkward time they were forced to advocate for positions opposite of traditional party lines. - Russia lost a the ability to prevent any action against its increasingly isolated stoolpidgeon, but got some much needed diplomacy cred, and a distraction from its very public human rights issues. - Assad doesn't risk provoking a multilateral military action against his government, but also gains a pretext to prevent proliferation of weapons that have become a huge liability, and some much needed legitimacy as the "grownup" in Syria. I'm not a new world order guy, but I do absolutely think that there are times when unfriendly nations work through the backchannels to prevent things that are just awful for everyone.