++Before listening to the President's speech, I read Andrew Bacevich's new book Breach of Tust:How Americans failed their Soldiers and their Country. And sadly, it has to be said that no one has any skin in the Syrian game from the American side, except the servicemen and women who might have to respond. Bacevich does a brilliant job of analyzing the changing military strategies from WWII on and how the divide between the state and the society widened so that there exists no accountability or desire for accountability of the gigantic war machine.
++Having said that President Obama's speech was surprising in some aspects. I expected an Oval Office War Speech. Instead, it was delivered in the East Wing. Yesterday's flurry of events forced the speech to be about fluid events with two dramatically opposed endings--war or peace. The President made mention of the enormous war-power capabilities which have accrued to the executive branch and spoke how it was better that Congress share in the responsibility. While noting he has the constitutional right to strike, he believed it was best if a President made military actions with the full support of Congress. He distinguished this strike from Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya in terms of scale and duration. He also mentioned the history of the use of chemical weapons. My great uncle Paul Demme would have been pleased since he was attacked with mustard gad during WWI and remained badly scarred for the rest of his life. President Obama said it was imperative that the United States act to prevent these attacks again. Then he sequed into the recent diplomatic offers that Syria surrender its arsenal of chemical weapons to the international community. For this diplomacy to take place, he was sending John Kerry tomorrow to Geneva to meet the Russian minister in charge of Syria.
++So The President requested the Senate suspend consideration of the authorization of military force.
++I thought the speech was fine basically framing the call for permission to use force as a deterrent to enhance a diplomatic solution. It reminded me of diplomatic gambits from yesteryear.
++Parenthetically, President Obama gave an even more moving speech today at the Pentagon to commemorate the real 9-11 attacks. But sometimes I wish he would pull back from the scripture. President Obama quoted at least six biblical passages, which even the Fundies would be hard pressed to quote.
++So how did the Syria speech go over. The CNN/ORC poll said 69% were favorably disposed to the President overall. 61% support Obama's position.37% oppose. On the question of whether Obama was convincing on his position: 47% said he did; 50% said he didn't.
++Andrew Sullivan, who spent the past week in different states of cardiac arrest because he feared Obama had made a blunder, called the talk "the clearest, simplest and most moving presidential speeches to the nation I can imagine." Read his full analysis at Daily Dish and subscribe to his blog. It is well worth the read.
++Michael Tomasky at the Daily Beast also writes favorably about President Obama's speech and position but says he still has an uphill battle.
++Former Obama aide, John Faureau writes about why this was the man he supported.
++John Podhoretz writes in the New York Post that President Obama shamed the country.
++Charles Pierce in his blog for Esquire writes a perfect analysis of why Washington doesn't understand Obama because they like "guts" and not someone who engages in the active process of deciding among options. I think Pierce is right on the money because I thought President Obama had an abstract goal to sell and more sophisticated options to consider than the win-lose media could comprehend.
++John Stewart did a marvelous attack on Fox News caterwauling about Obama "losing" to the Russians. Stewart likened John Kerry to Mr. Magoo who gaffed into a diplomatic solution. Stewart asked," Do we care who gets the credit if there is no war." He cut to videoclips of people shouting they Obama lost. "Who did he lose to? Do we lose if there is no war?"
++Today's drumbeat from the Right is that Obama is letting Russia back in as a major geopolitical force.
++Marco Rubio and John Boehner spent this 9-11 blasting President Obama for failing to bring the perpetrators of the 9/11 Benghazi attack to justice. No mention he brought the perpetrator of the original 9/11 to justice when their President didn't.
Showing posts with label Obama's Syria Speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama's Syria Speech. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Obama's Masterful Speech--The Guns of August
++When news that the Assad regime used chemical weapons on its population, the UK, France, Germany,Turkey,the Arab League and the United States said they should be punished. By today, it was down to France, the old colonial master of Syria,Canada and the United States. Prime Minister Cameron lost the parliamentary vote to use military force, the first such loss by a British Prime Minister since 1782. And Russian Prime Minister Putin thought the charge was ridiculous.
++President Obama spent the week giving informal interviews on the issue of Syria, with a specific reference on his concerns about proliferation and the challenge the use of such weapons placed on an international community, which has banned the use of such weapons after WWII.
++John Kerry made one statement about the use of these weapons and then yesterday made a speech outlining the specific intelligence that enabled the United States to make its conclusions. The intelligence was ranked "High Confidence", which is one step below "Certain". The assessment was that communications intercepts located the specific instructions and preparations to use the weapons and the specific units commanded to carry the operation out.
++During the last few days, it was clear from the reactions from the Left and the Right that the ghosts of W and Cheney hang over the whole enterprise. Those who are against intervention question the information about chemical weapons, likening Kerry speech to Colin Powell's speech on WMD's to the United Nations. Powell's Chief of Staff, Col. Larry Wilkinson said, "It was deja vu all of again".
++The difference in my opinion is that with Iraq we were talking about hypothetical WMDs, which never materialized, and here we are talking about the actual use of WMDS with vivid, graphic use of videos of adults and children dying.
++During the last two days, both President Obama and Senator Kerry briefed scores of congressmen in the Senate and the House. Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein came out for actions against Assad as did Senator Franken. One thought that was it. The President did his due diligence, briefed Congress, now he could make his decision and presumably act unilaterally. But House Republicans with 20 Democrats sent the President a letter demanding congress authorize military force, a situation that didn't occur under the prior administration.
++Comments, blogs and the punditocracy commented that Obama got himself in trouble previously by saying chemical weapons were a redline,the military was skeptical about the effectiveness of any action and progressives warned Obama about his campaign promises of changing a page for the the United States in the Middle East.
++Everyone used their favorite analogies. Is this the beginning of World War I again, the first steps in a regional conflagration? Is this Kossovo or Iraq? The major points of agreement were that Syria was now a failed state torn apart by ethnic and sectarian strife and that any American intervention would make it worse, bring in Iranians and encourage attacks on neighboring countries. The week's discussions were about the various forms of Armaggedon about to occur.
++So today was the day. President Obama addressed the press corps. He had made his decision. He would authorize military strike of a limited nature and time frame. There would be no invasion. There would be no boots on the ground. Yesterday he had said the actions would not be aimed at "regime change". Today, he asserted he had the President right to embark on the decision even if the United Nations Security Council did approve. He said the U.S. military was in position and that actions were not time specific. They could take place in days, weeks or months.
++He admitted the American public was war weary. He said the United States remained committed to the Syrian opposition, the refugees and to a government of reconciliation. He said he would take his message to the American public.
++President Obama said that these issues were too big for business as usual. He argued that we spent the years after WWII creating international norms to govern states' behavior and that the Syrian situation was a challenge to the United States and the international community. He said that not doing anything would have consequences and that people advocating this should be aware of the message to countries who aim to create nuclear weapons and proliferate biological warfare. He said he would be urging our international partners to politically stand behind us.
++He ended his statement by saying that this is not a partisan issue or who is in the White House. He urged Congress to vote on whether the United States would meet its commitments. He said it was time for Congress to take ownership of how America acts overseas.
++ The immediate aftermath was that Harry Reid wanted to call the Senate back into session and end their recess immediately to debate and vote on the measure. John Boehner issued a statement by the House Republicans that they would get around to it September 9th when recess ends.
++The blogosphere immediately applauded President Obama adroitly putting this on the back of Congress and ,depending on your politics, saying he basically wants it to fail. Personally, I don't agree.
++The one very interesting effect this challenge to Congress will have is to trigger open warfare within the GOP between the isolationists and the internationalists. And it will be interesting to see whether the GOP wants to extract concessions from the President to even hold a vote. The repercussions for the GOP will be very serious.
++Finally, whether you are for intervening or not, there should be agreement that the United States must step up the humanitarian efforts for the Syrian refugees, now numbering over 1.5 million spread over Turkey,Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq.
++President Obama spent the week giving informal interviews on the issue of Syria, with a specific reference on his concerns about proliferation and the challenge the use of such weapons placed on an international community, which has banned the use of such weapons after WWII.
++John Kerry made one statement about the use of these weapons and then yesterday made a speech outlining the specific intelligence that enabled the United States to make its conclusions. The intelligence was ranked "High Confidence", which is one step below "Certain". The assessment was that communications intercepts located the specific instructions and preparations to use the weapons and the specific units commanded to carry the operation out.
++During the last few days, it was clear from the reactions from the Left and the Right that the ghosts of W and Cheney hang over the whole enterprise. Those who are against intervention question the information about chemical weapons, likening Kerry speech to Colin Powell's speech on WMD's to the United Nations. Powell's Chief of Staff, Col. Larry Wilkinson said, "It was deja vu all of again".
++The difference in my opinion is that with Iraq we were talking about hypothetical WMDs, which never materialized, and here we are talking about the actual use of WMDS with vivid, graphic use of videos of adults and children dying.
++During the last two days, both President Obama and Senator Kerry briefed scores of congressmen in the Senate and the House. Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein came out for actions against Assad as did Senator Franken. One thought that was it. The President did his due diligence, briefed Congress, now he could make his decision and presumably act unilaterally. But House Republicans with 20 Democrats sent the President a letter demanding congress authorize military force, a situation that didn't occur under the prior administration.
++Comments, blogs and the punditocracy commented that Obama got himself in trouble previously by saying chemical weapons were a redline,the military was skeptical about the effectiveness of any action and progressives warned Obama about his campaign promises of changing a page for the the United States in the Middle East.
++Everyone used their favorite analogies. Is this the beginning of World War I again, the first steps in a regional conflagration? Is this Kossovo or Iraq? The major points of agreement were that Syria was now a failed state torn apart by ethnic and sectarian strife and that any American intervention would make it worse, bring in Iranians and encourage attacks on neighboring countries. The week's discussions were about the various forms of Armaggedon about to occur.
++So today was the day. President Obama addressed the press corps. He had made his decision. He would authorize military strike of a limited nature and time frame. There would be no invasion. There would be no boots on the ground. Yesterday he had said the actions would not be aimed at "regime change". Today, he asserted he had the President right to embark on the decision even if the United Nations Security Council did approve. He said the U.S. military was in position and that actions were not time specific. They could take place in days, weeks or months.
++He admitted the American public was war weary. He said the United States remained committed to the Syrian opposition, the refugees and to a government of reconciliation. He said he would take his message to the American public.
++President Obama said that these issues were too big for business as usual. He argued that we spent the years after WWII creating international norms to govern states' behavior and that the Syrian situation was a challenge to the United States and the international community. He said that not doing anything would have consequences and that people advocating this should be aware of the message to countries who aim to create nuclear weapons and proliferate biological warfare. He said he would be urging our international partners to politically stand behind us.
++He ended his statement by saying that this is not a partisan issue or who is in the White House. He urged Congress to vote on whether the United States would meet its commitments. He said it was time for Congress to take ownership of how America acts overseas.
++ The immediate aftermath was that Harry Reid wanted to call the Senate back into session and end their recess immediately to debate and vote on the measure. John Boehner issued a statement by the House Republicans that they would get around to it September 9th when recess ends.
++The blogosphere immediately applauded President Obama adroitly putting this on the back of Congress and ,depending on your politics, saying he basically wants it to fail. Personally, I don't agree.
++The one very interesting effect this challenge to Congress will have is to trigger open warfare within the GOP between the isolationists and the internationalists. And it will be interesting to see whether the GOP wants to extract concessions from the President to even hold a vote. The repercussions for the GOP will be very serious.
++Finally, whether you are for intervening or not, there should be agreement that the United States must step up the humanitarian efforts for the Syrian refugees, now numbering over 1.5 million spread over Turkey,Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)