Wednesday Open Thread 9.11.13
Regarding the President’s prime time speech last night, I agree that the speech probably should not have been given, but it had to be given to maintain the credible threat of force that is driving the diplomatic negotiations. So the speech itself, in my mind, was less important than reactions to the overall situation. And I think Andrew Sullivan and Booman best describe my thoughts:
That was one of the clearest, simplest and most moving presidential speeches to the nation I can imagine. It explained and it argued, point after point. Everything the president said extemporaneously at the post-G20 presser was touched on, made terser, more elegant and more persuasive. […]
I’m tired of the eye-rolling and the easy nit-picking of the president’s leadership on this over the last few weeks. The truth is: his threat of war galvanized the world and America, raised the profile of the issue of chemical weapons more powerfully than ever before, ensured that this atrocity would not be easily ignored and fostered a diplomatic initiative to resolve the issue without use of arms. All the objectives he has said he wanted from the get-go are now within reach, and the threat of military force – even if implicit – remains.
Yes, it’s been messy. A more cautious president would have ducked it. Knowing full well it could scramble his presidency, Obama nonetheless believed that stopping chemical weapons use is worth it – for the long run, and for Americans as well as Syrians. Putin understands this as well. Those chemical weapons, if uncontrolled, could easily slip into the hands of rebels whose second target, after Assad and the Alawites and the Christians, would be Russia.
This emphatically does not solve the Syria implosion. But Obama has never promised to. What it does offer is a nonviolent way toward taking the chemical weapons issue off the table. Just because we cannot solve everything does not mean we cannot solve something. And the core truth is that without Obama’s willingness to go out on a precarious limb, we would not have that opportunity.
The money quote for me, apart from the deeply moving passage about poison gas use at the end, was his description of a letter from a service-member who told him, “We should not be the world’s policeman.” President Obama said, quite simply: “I agree.” And those on the far right who are accusing him of ceding the Middle East to Russia are half-right and yet completely wrong. What this remarkable breakthrough has brought about is a possible end to the dynamic in which America is both blamed for all the evils in the world and then also blamed for not stopping all of them. We desperately need to rebuild international cooperation to relieve us of that impossible burden in a cycle that can only hurt us and the West again and again.
Booman on the current situation:
Initially, [President Obama] responded [to the August 21 chemical attack in Syria] by acceding to his own foreign policy establishment and calling for limited punitive strikes that would have actually been designed to tilt the battlefield in the rebels’ favor (although not to the point that they would force an abdication). The policy was nonsensical, which was plain to almost everyone, but something had to be done. For Vladimir Putin, a refiguring of the battlefield in Syria was not in his interests. So, suddenly, it became preferable to offer the deal Obama had been asking for for a year.
The downside is that the battlefield will remain tilted in Assad’s favor. That is what Russia gets out of it. What Obama gets out of it is the avoidance of deeper commitment to a complete quagmire, a total solution to the chemical weapons problem, an effective enforcement of the norm against the use of chemical weapons, the gratitude of a war-weary public, and one more example of the charmed life he leads, this time with almost a magician’s twist.
The hawks will be unhappy. Anyone who wants a quick end to Syria’s civil war will be unhappy, but they were relying on mission creep to get the job done. And that is exactly what Obama has been fighting against from Day One. You may find reasons to disagree with the man’s policies. You may think he bears some responsibility for the tragedy in Syria because he has refused to make it America’s responsibility to solve, but he’s fought off everyone, including in his own cabinet, and come out the other side with a way out that is hard to criticize. Raise your hand if you saw it coming.
Fred Kaplan on the Obama’s speech:
The upshot is this: If Russia backs away from a real deal, after exciting so many players to its possibilities, Obama could emerge with his air strikes gaining greater support—at home and abroad. To this end, Obama and his aides have crafted a narrative that makes everything they’ve done in recent days—the slips and slides, as well as the shrewd moves—seem smart and bold: namely, that Putin proposed this plan (and Assad subsequently announced that Syria would join the other 189 nations that have signed an international treaty prohibiting the use of chemical weapons) only because the United States had threatened to use force.
This narrative may even be true.
Obama attributed the Russian initiative partly to “the credible threat of U.S. military action.” That’s certainly the case. The Russians and Syrians would not have budged without the threat of American force. And even if the protracted negotiations over the next months don’t result in a clear and firm proposal. Assad will have acknowledged his use of chemical weapons and be far less likely to use them again, as will other dictators who find themselves facing popular rebellions. And if by any chance he does use them, Obama should have less trouble in building an international coalition to punish him. That’s all to the good, and is the result—even with all the bungling diplomacy—of Obama’s initial threat of force.
The sudden onset of diplomacy has produced a widespread skepticism that I find baffling. Remember, the purpose of air strikes is not to topple Assad. It can’t prevent the attack that has already happened. All it can do is prevent him – and, to a lesser extent, future dictators — from using chemical weapons. The skeptical reactions I’ve seen, from the likes of Jeff Goldberg, Julia Ioffe, and Max Fisher all seem to lose sight of this, judging diplomacy against a standard of success higher than the air strikes could possibly have achieved.
Ross Douthat thinks the speech should not have taken place:
A prime time presidential address should either announce a policy course or make a specific appeal to Congress; it should not be wasted on a situation where the course is so unclear and the appeal so vague and undirected. Yes, it’s been on the schedule since last week, but there is no rule saying that a president must speak when he’s announced that he will speak if significant events intervene. And after the Russian gambit and the Congressional vote’s postponement, it would have been the better part of valor to simply postpone this speech as well.
It’s impossible to take seriously Obama’s claim that he doesn’t think “world’s policeman” is the proper U.S. role when he is delivering a speech defending the necessity of enforcing an international norm with military action. He recycled several of his officials’ worst fear-mongering arguments about proliferation, Iran, and terrorism, but these have not improved through repeated assertion. All in all, this was a speech that Obama didn’t need to give, and he said nothing that would persuade anyone not already supportive of his policy.
Can anyone explain to me this:
http://news.yahoo.com/recession-risk-gone-u-states-1-moodys-analytics-205023638–business.html
This reminds me of a time about a month or so prior to the invasion of Iraq when Bush could have gotten everything he wanted out of Saddam. It was all just sitting there because of the threat of force, but Bush/Cheney/Rumsfled couldn’t accept winning that way. They had a hard on to play Army.
The contrast with Obama makes me hate Bush/Cheney/Rumsfled even more than I thought I could.
@LG I blame the Treasurer.
My opinion is better summed up by John Stewart.
Here
and
Here.
LG. I’ll try. The Moody’s Analysis is heavily rated on industrial development. Delaware is low in that one department; we are primarily a financial driven economy. Their analysis for this comparison ignores the financial sector while focusing on the industrial sector, therefore on their radar, we don’t show.
Hope that helps.
Andrew Sullivan is precious. Simply precious. Bless his little heart.
“it had to be given to maintain the credible threat of force that is driving the diplomatic negotiations.”
You didn’t even have to watch the speech. Hillary said the same thing the day before when she was trying to get in on the act (Chelsea was there).
I feel your pain. And I have to say that I’m kinda enjoying it.
Yeah, the pain in my side from laughing so much.
FBH, I have to say, Hillary in her new haircut and suit… she looks tanned, rested and ready.
I thought the speech was actually kind of bland; not his best delivery. Whoever did his makeup and the lighting did a lousy job, because he looked kind of plastic on TV.
President Obama needed to hit a home run with this speech, to generate more support. Instead, he laid down a bunt and just barely beat the throw to first base. Not a loss by any means, but I don’t think that he did what he needed to do.
The President told us that we were not the world’s policemen, and shouldn’t be, but he also told us that only the United States could do this. That seems pretty contradictory to me.
Like a couple of the articles from which you quoted: the President gave a speech he had scheduled well in advance of yesterday’s developments, and probably wouldn’t have given it at all if those developments had occurred before it was scheduled.
John Judis wrote:
If it is a choice between using chemical weapons and defeat, dictators will use the weapons. The lessons of Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadafi and Hosni Mubarak pretty clearly say to dictators: if you lose, you really lose.
Still, I am not sure why 1,429 people killed by sarin gas are just so much deader than the 100,000 killed by bombs and bullets. The President had promised to send arms to some of the rebel groups — a promise not yet kept — which says, to me, that we will react with shock and horror and action if people are killed the wrong way, but we are willing to send munitions to help kill people the right way. Just how does that make sense?
I agree with you Dana. It was a good enough speech given the circumstances. If the Russia deal had not been there, and had a vote in Congress been in the next few days, I have a feeling the speech and the delivery would have been different. But, given that the speech was “semi-moot,” the speech itself was only “semi”
Dana, I get that you are flustered because Obama has just proven what a totally kick-ass President he is (especially compared to that fucking debacle named George Bush), but you are going to have to come up with comments that have some kind of point.
The Moody’s rating isn’t an industrial development weighting, it is more about a measurement of the health of each state’s economic drivers. They explain themselves:
@DD you must be reading something into Dana’s nonsense that I don’t see.
I want to know what — exactly — is wrong with all of the people who are not watching Breaking Bad.
The real story here is that the Military Industrial Complex lost the fight for a quick payday and possible long term income stream, the first time in my almost 58 years I’ve seen this happen. Sure, John McCain is on a suicide watch and Graham is inconsolable, but the rest of us get a break. One we’ve long needed from endless war and idiots with flag magnets on their cars.
Jason, it’s understood that you don’t like me very much, and it’s obvious that, on liberal sites, conservatives are going to have to accept a lot of personal attacks, but it would be interesting to know just what part of what I wrote you actually disagree with, and why. DD agreed, at least in part, because she read it with her eyes and her brain, and not just animosity.
Dana, I am male. LOL
Not sure about this — Saul Goodman gets his own TV show.
Sorry, DD, I had thought that you were female. My apologies, though having thought you had X chromosomes isn’t an insult. 🙂
For a male named Dana, I very much understand. 😆
The speech was on of many in a long list of chit chat and no leadership. Putin laughs at Obama and Assad is now confident he can smash the rebels with impunity.
By the way,Obama could not carry Bush’s jock strap.
“We desperately need to rebuild international cooperation to relieve us of that impossible burden in a cycle that can only hurt us and the West again and again.”
Nato- No, Arab League- No, British-No, United Nations-No. Obama could not get anyone to say yes. He could not build anything, no one follows a weakling.
By the way,Obama could not carry Bush’s jock strap.
Osama bin Laden could not be reached for comment.
I noted yesterday that the weapons President Obama had promised to the Syrian rebels hadn’t been delivered yet, but The Washington Post reported yesterday that they are finally starting to be delivered.
Puck for the win!
Back in the 1970s due to US leverage being compromised when countries like France began reducing their US dollar reserves- converting USD for gold, Nixon removed the gold standard completely off of the US Dollar valuation. About 1.5 years later OPEC decided they would only take gold for oil. Our elected officials including Nixon decided to listen to Paul Volker and others with the Federal Reserve and US Dept of Treasury to convert our US Dollar values on foreign oil from Saudi Arabia- who agreed to trade oil for US Dollars. This was soon after peened as “Petrodollars”. This has continued to the present day. In exchange for taking US Dollars for oil we agreed to provide “humanitarian aid” and military aid to Saudi Arabia where they have been active in spreading Sharia Law.
While We hear of the chemical weapons being used it is important that your readers also realize that al Nursa (rebels fighting against Assad) have been arrested in Turkey, and were found with Sarin Gas the same chemicals that Assad has been accused of using- that killed more Assad loyalists than it did “rebels”.
It should also be noted that al Nursa has close affiliation with al Queada. whom we ae supposed to be opposed to.
While the entire upshot may sound so confusing it is not that difficult to follow who we are supporting and why.
While we are told to loook at the use of chemical weapons being used in Syria. we also need to recognize that the same rebels we are supporting with small arms and training in Jordan for the past several months have recently “liberated” a town that was controlled by Christians. The town was then told they must convert to Islam or they will be beheaded. Is this what democrats support? funding attacks on christians? This is the same type of action that was occuring in Egypt under Morsi, which was the reason why moderate muslims and Christians ousted Morsi from power.
Back to Saudi Arabia; We have provided trillions of dolllars to that counry since Nixon and Congress agreed to convert the USD from gold to foreign oil. And we must also look at whether religious freedom is allowed there. Womens rights are also violated in Saudi Arabia. But we turn the other way on these actions that are really no different than what is being used by some in our own government to impose military intervention in Syria.
We have yet to get answers behind what happened in Benghazi. there is HR 36 that to my knowledge has not a single Democrat supporting that will put together a committee with subpoena powers investigating and bringing forth transparency by our goverment holding accountable those who are to blame for what occured and led up to the Sept 11 attack in Libya last year that killed 4 Americans, one a US Ambassador appointed by Mr. Obama himself.
In closing comments on this subject.
Should we elect public officials to force you or anyone you know to convert to Islam? Christianity? Buddism? Humanism? Any religious faith or any particular doctrine that a religious faith holds?
If you say NO
Why do you support electing public officials who have continued to agree with either sending state tax dollars to Washington, or electing people to go to Washington, D.C. only to appropriate tax dollars that in part comes from the State of Delaware’s taxpayers for what is labeled as “humanitarian aid” and military supplies (also supplied by tax dollars), to foreign governments (or in the case of Syria; rebels who are mostly not Syrians but foreign fighters funded by Saudi Arabia) who not only oppose religious freedom, those same countries (like Saudi Arabia) enforce Sharia Law that includes capital punishment upon its citizens who openly oppose their governments selected religion or wish to openly practice another religion other than the governments selected religous beliefs- such as Wahhabism and Strict Sharia Law.
When you vote for public officials, who agree to appropriate funding and military aid to countries such as Saudi Arabia in exchange for foreign oil, you are agreeing to violate your own civil rights, to spread another countries particular religious beliefs throughout the world. In the case of Saudi Arabia; Wahhabisim a strict Sunni Islamic doctrine that follows Sharia Law.
Some will accuse me of being an isolationist. When in fact I am actually suggesting our elected officials use ‘common sense’ in matters of logical foreign policy.
If a country seeks US funding or miltary aid but violates our constitution why should we violate it ourselves, to appease or even capitulate to “a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.”
Again, I say, If a country violates our constitution why should we elect public officials to violate it for us ” Yes that is how sharia law has been spread around the globe. By constantly putting people in office-appropriating federal funding under the guise “Humanitarian Aid” or foreign policy to protect US interests abroad while overlooking the facts that slavery, and a plethora of civil right violations occur daily by those very governments we fund, while they continue to spread their religious theocracy abroad. thus prima facia American voters are saying to the rest of the world; our rights really are not all that important
“Some will accuse me of being an isolationist.”
And others will accuse you of being an idiot.
I just loved the way the Dittoheads,Teabaggers Fox Noise and the right wingers in congress loved Putin when they thought Putin had the upper hand and that Obama had painted himself into a corner only to find out that the master chess player had also painted an exit door. Now after yesterdays op-ed in the times they are attempting to wipe egg off their faces