More Mud in the Water - US Intervention in Syria
It seems the longer the decision takes to decided whether to attack Syria, the more I swear.
A few thoughts and updates -
The president decided to put the decision to attack Syria up to a Congressional vote. Everyone knows that Congress has been worse than dysfunctional, so this is a risky move. One risk is that this issue will be seen in a partisan light and Republicans will oppose the attack based on Obama's party affiliation, even if it run counter to their typic hawkishness. I suspect this risk is small however and the recent support from John McCain and Lindsey Graham, both Republican senators, seems to suggest that some will look beyond the party lines. I have heard some wary talk about the fringes of the Republican party, but I do not know who this refers to (Tea Party, maybe?), how substantial the fringe is, and where they stand. The second risk is that Congress simply won't approve the attack, regardless of party lines as is what happened in Britain.
One possible positive outcome from putting it to Congressional vote is that it may help to ease the grid-lock in Congress. In my humble opinion, I doubt Congress will actually fail to pass this. There is too much on the line here as far as the precedent set for chemical weapons use in addition to America's credibility. This will be a very, very public decision made by Congress and if they can come together on this issue, it may lay the way for further cooperation.
As a new development that came out of a meeting with McCain, Graham, and Obama, the government is considering a more substantial intervention in Syria with the purpose of tilting the balance of the war. This is serious. Up to this point, attacking the regime was seen as a punishment for using chemical weapons, without the intention of picking sides in the civil war. Now, it seems, the president is considering taking a more serious step. Decisively intervening in the war has been advocated by John McCain, so who knows if he has persuaded Obama to his position, or if Obama may have expressed interest to gain McCain's support. I think it is much more uncertain whether Congress will be willing to enter the civil war in Syria. The two words on everyone's lips: war weariness.
Now, if the water wasn't muddy enough, I just watched a video about Syrian civilians that are camping on top the hills overlooking Damascus next to a strategic military position of the regime. Basically, civilian proponents of the regime are putting themselves directly in the line of American fire as a way of deterring the attacks. This.... seems like kind of a big deal. This information is based off of a report in the WSJ and I haven't confirmed it with any other sources, but putting civilians at major military locations could make it impossible to attack without casualties. This development may make Obama wish he would have made the decision sooner.
There are many balls in the air at this point, and it is truly impossible to say which way they will fall. It is very good to make decisions as serious as bombing another country in haste, and I need to be careful of not to jump to conclusions. For all I know, the opposition could have conducted the chemical weapons attack (this seems very unlikely though).
A few thoughts and updates -
The president decided to put the decision to attack Syria up to a Congressional vote. Everyone knows that Congress has been worse than dysfunctional, so this is a risky move. One risk is that this issue will be seen in a partisan light and Republicans will oppose the attack based on Obama's party affiliation, even if it run counter to their typic hawkishness. I suspect this risk is small however and the recent support from John McCain and Lindsey Graham, both Republican senators, seems to suggest that some will look beyond the party lines. I have heard some wary talk about the fringes of the Republican party, but I do not know who this refers to (Tea Party, maybe?), how substantial the fringe is, and where they stand. The second risk is that Congress simply won't approve the attack, regardless of party lines as is what happened in Britain.
One possible positive outcome from putting it to Congressional vote is that it may help to ease the grid-lock in Congress. In my humble opinion, I doubt Congress will actually fail to pass this. There is too much on the line here as far as the precedent set for chemical weapons use in addition to America's credibility. This will be a very, very public decision made by Congress and if they can come together on this issue, it may lay the way for further cooperation.
As a new development that came out of a meeting with McCain, Graham, and Obama, the government is considering a more substantial intervention in Syria with the purpose of tilting the balance of the war. This is serious. Up to this point, attacking the regime was seen as a punishment for using chemical weapons, without the intention of picking sides in the civil war. Now, it seems, the president is considering taking a more serious step. Decisively intervening in the war has been advocated by John McCain, so who knows if he has persuaded Obama to his position, or if Obama may have expressed interest to gain McCain's support. I think it is much more uncertain whether Congress will be willing to enter the civil war in Syria. The two words on everyone's lips: war weariness.
Now, if the water wasn't muddy enough, I just watched a video about Syrian civilians that are camping on top the hills overlooking Damascus next to a strategic military position of the regime. Basically, civilian proponents of the regime are putting themselves directly in the line of American fire as a way of deterring the attacks. This.... seems like kind of a big deal. This information is based off of a report in the WSJ and I haven't confirmed it with any other sources, but putting civilians at major military locations could make it impossible to attack without casualties. This development may make Obama wish he would have made the decision sooner.
There are many balls in the air at this point, and it is truly impossible to say which way they will fall. It is very good to make decisions as serious as bombing another country in haste, and I need to be careful of not to jump to conclusions. For all I know, the opposition could have conducted the chemical weapons attack (this seems very unlikely though).
Sources-
