Obama and Syria: A Trail of Half-Steps, Mixed Messages

[Geaux4it]

Another example of failed foreign policy from an inept POTUS.

Red line and all of that...

If I didn't know better, I would think Obama was color blind...

-Geaux

Insight - Obama and Syria: a trail of half-steps, mixed messages | Reuters

Another former senior official lamented the gap between Obama's call for Assad's ouster and plans to enforce the declaration: "When the president says something like this, it's not an advisory opinion. Something's got to be done to make it happen... There was no strategy in place. That was it."

The group's aborted mission underscores the half-steps and mixed messages that have characterized Obama's Syria policy. After nearly two years of hesitancy in Washington, Assad now has regained the upper hand in the conflict, and the White House last month finally approved providing limited arms for Syrian rebels, a step Obama had long resisted.

 

[NightFox]

Another example of failed foreign policy from an inept POTUS.

Red line and all of that...

If I didn't know better, I would think Obama was color blind...

-Geaux

Insight - Obama and Syria: a trail of half-steps, mixed messages | Reuters

Another former senior official lamented the gap between Obama's call for Assad's ouster and plans to enforce the declaration: "When the president says something like this, it's not an advisory opinion. Something's got to be done to make it happen... There was no strategy in place. That was it."

The group's aborted mission underscores the half-steps and mixed messages that have characterized Obama's Syria policy. After nearly two years of hesitancy in Washington, Assad now has regained the upper hand in the conflict, and the White House last month finally approved providing limited arms for Syrian rebels, a step Obama had long resisted.

Thanks for sharing the article, interesting synopsis. Personally I commend the President for not getting us directly involved in the Syrian Civil War (so far), I agree with the author that President Obama's previous statements have been both inconsistent and have shown a naivete about what it means when the POTUS makes such statements.

The "drawing a line" comments were especially foolish given the implication that the U.S. would commit to direct military action in the event chemical weapons were used (and forced the President into a rather embarrassing retreat when they were), the whole chain of events here leads one to believe that the President doesn't really understand the gravity of the Presidency when it comes to foreign policy.

I also worry about the future implications of committing arms to these rebels, given the results of our supporting the Mujaheddin (later to become the foundation of AQ) in a similar fashion in that we cannot trust that these arms will not someday be turned against Americans and what sending arms might mean with respect to an escalation of our involvement. I understand that the President is under tremendous pressure by certain warhawks from both his own party and the GOP to intervene but one hopes that he's able to swallow his pride (admit at least to himself that his previous statements were ill advised), think through the potential long term implications of any actions and show restraint, we shall see I suppose.

 

[FA_Q2]

This is what comes when you open your big mouth without real policy behind it. I don’t really think we should be getting involved much as I resent the America’s the worlds police concept but if the president is going to make public statements then we better damn well back them up or what is our word worth?

Obama has a habit of this though. From this to Martin and the incident with the cop and the sexual assault problem in the military, Obama tends to say things before he has really thought about the consequences of such. That is a REALLY poor habit to have when you are the leader of the most powerful entity on the face of the planet. The president should understand that anything that falls from his lips have far reaching and very strong consequences. Not even Bush, who had the propensity to spew some of the stupidest things that a president has ever managed to say, did not eat his words this often.

 

[FA_Q2]

Another example of failed foreign policy from an inept POTUS.

Red line and all of that...

If I didn't know better, I would think Obama was color blind...

-Geaux

Insight - Obama and Syria: a trail of half-steps, mixed messages | Reuters

Another former senior official lamented the gap between Obama's call for Assad's ouster and plans to enforce the declaration: "When the president says something like this, it's not an advisory opinion. Something's got to be done to make it happen... There was no strategy in place. That was it."

The group's aborted mission underscores the half-steps and mixed messages that have characterized Obama's Syria policy. After nearly two years of hesitancy in Washington, Assad now has regained the upper hand in the conflict, and the White House last month finally approved providing limited arms for Syrian rebels, a step Obama had long resisted.

Thanks for sharing the article, interesting synopsis. Personally I commend the President for not getting us directly involved in the Syrian Civil War (so far), I agree with the author that President Obama's previous statements have been both inconsistent and have shown a naivete about what it means when the POTUS makes such statements.

The "drawing a line" comments were especially foolish given the implication that the U.S. would commit to direct military action in the event chemical weapons were used (and forced the President into a rather embarrassing retreat when they were), the whole chain of events here leads one to believe that the President doesn't really understand the gravity of the Presidency when it comes to foreign policy.

I also worry about the future implications of committing arms to these rebels, given the results of our supporting the Mujaheddin (later to become the foundation of AQ) in a similar fashion in that we cannot trust that these arms will not someday be turned against Americans and what sending arms might mean with respect to an escalation of our involvement. I understand that the President is under tremendous pressure by certain warhawks from both his own party and the GOP to intervene but one hopes that he's able to swallow his pride (admit at least to himself that his previous statements were ill advised), think through the potential long term implications of any actions and show restraint, we shall see I suppose.

I would add that the foundation of AQ was essentially exactly the same as this incident. Essentially, we armed them and then did not support them fully in a devastating conflict or the restructuring afterward. It achieved our goals at the time BUT it left the populous feeling abandoned and betrayed. That left us as the ‘bad guy’ and essentially started the hate that those factions felt against the west and the US. How are we doing anything different in this situation? I don’t really see this as ending in a good way for us at all as long as we are getting half involved. We need to get in there and commit or never get involved in the first place, not this half assed approach as that worse than the other two options.

 

[NightFox]

Obama tends to say things before he has really thought about the consequences of such.

I've noticed the same tendency, makes one question the competency of the President's staff, they are the people that are supposed to make sure the President doesn't stick his foot in his mouth in public and so far they're doing a poor job of it. Perhaps it's time to clean house, maybe ask Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush to help with finding some competent replacements?

 

[Geaux4it]

Who could of been behind this split-up of barge carrying arms to Syrian rebels?

-Geaux

Container Ship Carrying Weapons for Syrian Rebels Splits in Half/Sinks

Container Ship Carrying Weapons for Syrian Rebels Splits in Half/Sinks | Philosophers stone

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Obama wants to put Muslim fascists in power in Syria just like he did in Egypt. It's that simple.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Obama tends to say things before he has really thought about the consequences of such.

I've noticed the same tendency, makes one question the competency of the President's staff, they are the people that are supposed to make sure the President doesn't stick his foot in his mouth in public and so far they're doing a poor job of it. Perhaps it's time to clean house, maybe ask Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush to help with finding some competent replacements?

LOL @ the idea that Obama is worried one iota about the idea of 'competency.' He cares about his agenda; an agenda that any incompetent boob can orchestrate.

 

[NightFox]

Who could of been behind this split-up of barge carrying arms to Syrian rebels?

-Geaux

Container Ship Carrying Weapons for Syrian Rebels Splits in Half/Sinks

Container Ship Carrying Weapons for Syrian Rebels Splits in Half/Sinks | Philosophers stone

If the ship carrying weapons for the Syrian rebels sank I guess it might not matter anyways :

(from the Insight - Obama and Syria: a trail of half-steps, mixed messages | Reuters article)

The limited and relatively light arms - automatic weapons, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades - are unlikely to be delivered until August, officials have said. Many observers inside and outside the administration are doubtful it will be enough to tilt the balance in the rebels' favor.

Apparently some people think that sending these arms is nothing more than a PR move. If this is true I'd rather have those weapons at the bottom of the Indian Ocean, at least those tax dollars aren't contributing to needlessly killing people.

 

[Geaux4it]

Who could of been behind this split-up of barge carrying arms to Syrian rebels?

-Geaux

Container Ship Carrying Weapons for Syrian Rebels Splits in Half/Sinks

Container Ship Carrying Weapons for Syrian Rebels Splits in Half/Sinks | Philosophers stone

If the ship carrying weapons for the Syrian rebels sank I guess it might not matter anyways :

(from the Insight - Obama and Syria: a trail of half-steps, mixed messages | Reuters article)

The limited and relatively light arms - automatic weapons, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades - are unlikely to be delivered until August, officials have said. Many observers inside and outside the administration are doubtful it will be enough to tilt the balance in the rebels' favor.

Apparently some people think that sending these arms is nothing more than a PR move. If this is true I'd rather have those weapons at the bottom of the Indian Ocean, at least those tax dollars aren't contributing to needlessly killing people.

Putin has already trumped the US in Syria. Thank goodness no more talk of no-fly zones. Putin already has boots on the ground and a destroyer off shore. Plus, he has MIGS flying now.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/10/us-russia-syria-warship-idUSBRE8690MY20120710

Russian Marine & Air Power Head For Syria Versus Western Intervention to Defend Russian Citizens, Says Moscow | Military

Just one day after the G8 Summit ended in the failure of Western leaders to overcome Russian resistance to a resolution mandating President Bashar Assad’s ouster, Moscow announced Wednesday June 19, the dispatch to Syria of two warships carrying 600 Russian marines.

-Geaux

 

[FA_Q2]

Who could of been behind this split-up of barge carrying arms to Syrian rebels?

-Geaux

Container Ship Carrying Weapons for Syrian Rebels Splits in Half/Sinks

Container Ship Carrying Weapons for Syrian Rebels Splits in Half/Sinks | Philosophers stone

If the ship carrying weapons for the Syrian rebels sank I guess it might not matter anyways :

(from the Insight - Obama and Syria: a trail of half-steps, mixed messages | Reuters article)

The limited and relatively light arms - automatic weapons, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades - are unlikely to be delivered until August, officials have said. Many observers inside and outside the administration are doubtful it will be enough to tilt the balance in the rebels' favor.

Apparently some people think that sending these arms is nothing more than a PR move. If this is true I'd rather have those weapons at the bottom of the Indian Ocean, at least those tax dollars aren't contributing to needlessly killing people.

It’s worse than that tough. If we end up backing the losers here, we only achieve two things. First, the meaning of our ‘backing’ will be diminished. Second, we garner the ire of the winning faction. Should Assad reclaim power, the one thing that will be on the forefront of any Syrian dealing with the American government is that we are the enemy. It will make foreign relations a nightmare and the likely terrorist fallout that will occur very difficult to deal with. A loss after backing the losing faction here could cost us for decades.

 

[NightFox]

It’s worse than that tough. If we end up backing the losers here, we only achieve two things. First, the meaning of our ‘backing’ will be diminished. Second, we garner the ire of the winning faction. Should Assad reclaim power, the one thing that will be on the forefront of any Syrian dealing with the American government is that we are the enemy. It will make foreign relations a nightmare and the likely terrorist fallout that will occur very difficult to deal with. A loss after backing the losing faction here could cost us for decades.

I see your point, however haven't we already tacitly backed the rebels (re: The Presidents previous statements)? So if the rebels lose we're not only seen as backing the losing side, we're seen as a mealy mouthed Nation that doesn't back up the rhetoric of it's leaders. If on the other hand the rebels manage to prevail, I would expect a new Syrian government (and probably most other nations) to view us with suspicion based on the same "a lot of talk and no action" basis.

To me this imbroglio just validates Ron Paul's non-interventionist positions, IMHO the Presidents response all along should have been something along the lines of "This is an internal Syrian conflict, the United States will not get militarily involved, nor will we pick sides"... then offered up humanitarian aid to the Syrian people.

 

[Geaux4it]

It’s worse than that tough. If we end up backing the losers here, we only achieve two things. First, the meaning of our ‘backing’ will be diminished. Second, we garner the ire of the winning faction. Should Assad reclaim power, the one thing that will be on the forefront of any Syrian dealing with the American government is that we are the enemy. It will make foreign relations a nightmare and the likely terrorist fallout that will occur very difficult to deal with. A loss after backing the losing faction here could cost us for decades.

I see your point, however haven't we already tacitly backed the rebels (re: The Presidents previous statements)? So if the rebels lose we're not only seen as backing the losing side, we're seen as a mealy mouthed Nation that doesn't back up the rhetoric of it's leaders. If on the other hand the rebels manage to prevail, I would expect a new Syrian government (and probably most other nations) to view us with suspicion based on the same "a lot of talk and no action" basis.

To me this imbroglio just validates Ron Paul's non-interventionist positions, IMHO the Presidents response all along should have been something along the lines of "This is an internal Syrian conflict, the United States will not get militarily involved, nor will we pick sides"... then offered up humanitarian aid to the Syrian people.

Look.. Shark...Shark...Shark...

I dare you to cross this line...Uh oh, he did..

Um, OK- 3 steps back.. I dare you to cross THIS line...

Eventually when it counts, nobody will listen.

-Geaux

 

[NightFox]

Look.. Shark...Shark...Shark...

I dare you to cross this line...Uh oh, he did..

Um, OK- 3 steps back.. I dare you to cross THIS line...

LOL, you forgot to add the "and this time we're serious!" ....

 

[JoeB131]

Another example of failed foreign policy from an inept POTUS.

Red line and all of that...

If I didn't know better, I would think Obama was color blind...

-Geaux

Insight - Obama and Syria: a trail of half-steps, mixed messages | Reuters

Another former senior official lamented the gap between Obama's call for Assad's ouster and plans to enforce the declaration: "When the president says something like this, it's not an advisory opinion. Something's got to be done to make it happen... There was no strategy in place. That was it."

The group's aborted mission underscores the half-steps and mixed messages that have characterized Obama's Syria policy. After nearly two years of hesitancy in Washington, Assad now has regained the upper hand in the conflict, and the White House last month finally approved providing limited arms for Syrian rebels, a step Obama had long resisted.

If you feel so strongly about it, you should sign up to help the Jihadists fighting mean old Bashir Assad.

I mean, all your tough talk about guns, you'd fit right in.

Seriously, though. I see no good reason for getting involved in yet another civil war that has nothing to do with us in the Middle East.

 

[FA_Q2]

It’s worse than that tough. If we end up backing the losers here, we only achieve two things. First, the meaning of our ‘backing’ will be diminished. Second, we garner the ire of the winning faction. Should Assad reclaim power, the one thing that will be on the forefront of any Syrian dealing with the American government is that we are the enemy. It will make foreign relations a nightmare and the likely terrorist fallout that will occur very difficult to deal with. A loss after backing the losing faction here could cost us for decades.

I see your point, however haven't we already tacitly backed the rebels (re: The Presidents previous statements)? So if the rebels lose we're not only seen as backing the losing side, we're seen as a mealy mouthed Nation that doesn't back up the rhetoric of it's leaders. If on the other hand the rebels manage to prevail, I would expect a new Syrian government (and probably most other nations) to view us with suspicion based on the same "a lot of talk and no action" basis.

To me this imbroglio just validates Ron Paul's non-interventionist positions, IMHO the Presidents response all along should have been something along the lines of "This is an internal Syrian conflict, the United States will not get militarily involved, nor will we pick sides"... then offered up humanitarian aid to the Syrian people.

Yes, we have already tactically backed them and I agree with your conclusions. I was just adding that the weapons shipment sinking might mean that American weapons are not killing people over there but that the larger picture remains largely unchanged. Essentially, the weapons not making it really does not mean much as far as the fallout goes.

It is even a negative if the rebels do win because we would have failed to deliver on our promise unless another shipment is sent. That is a likely occurrence though.

 

[velvtacheeze]

Another example of failed foreign policy from an inept POTUS.

Red line and all of that...

If I didn't know better, I would think Obama was color blind...

-Geaux

Insight - Obama and Syria: a trail of half-steps, mixed messages | Reuters

Another former senior official lamented the gap between Obama's call for Assad's ouster and plans to enforce the declaration: "When the president says something like this, it's not an advisory opinion. Something's got to be done to make it happen... There was no strategy in place. That was it."

The group's aborted mission underscores the half-steps and mixed messages that have characterized Obama's Syria policy. After nearly two years of hesitancy in Washington, Assad now has regained the upper hand in the conflict, and the White House last month finally approved providing limited arms for Syrian rebels, a step Obama had long resisted.

Wished we'd done nothing in Iraq too. We'd be better off, and so would Iraqis.