Obama Reviewing Syrian Stance as Stalemate Seems Likely

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Wed Nov 12, 2014 at 10:02:37 PM EST
Tags: Obama, Syria, Iraq (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

President Obama wants Congress to fund his request for additional training and weapons in Iraq. What will he have to give up to get it, from those in Congress and at the Pentagon who think his plan isn't hawkish enough? Without Congressional approval, apparently there will be no funding for arming and training since executive authority doesn't cover that. That may not be easy:

Some Democrats have said they’re concerned that U.S. forces will become mired in ground combat in Iraq, despite Obama’s pledge that won’t happen. Some Republicans say Obama should take more aggressive action, such as moving more quickly to arm non-Islamic State rebels in Syria and enforcing a no-fly zone over Syria near the Turkish border.

From news reports, it sounds like Obama is under pressure to modify his "Iraq first" policy, under which helping the rebels fight Assad takes a back seat to defeating ISIS in Iraq. Obama is asking his advisers to review U.S. policy on Syria. But the two cited unnamed sources seem to say different things:
[More...]

Source #1:

"The president has asked us to look again at how this fits together," CNN quoted one senior official as saying. "The long-running Syria problem is now compounded by the reality that to genuinely defeat ISIL, we need not only a defeat in Iraq but a defeat in Syria."

Source #2:

A White House National Security Council official told Reuters: "The strategy with respect to Syria has not changed."

Source #2 says that strategy is:

"deny them [ISIS] safe haven and to disrupt their ability to project power,"...and "working with our allies to strengthen the moderate opposition."

The rebels have been taking a big beating from both ISIS and al Nusra lately. And they aren't happy about the U.S. air strikes.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is testifying tomorrow before Congress. I think the two possibilities are that Congress will stalemate or authorize the funds as requested. Anyone hoping for more is likely to be disappointed. Someone needs to keep Lindsay Graham away from the Kool-Aid he's drinking. Now he wants the U.S. to send 20,000 troops to fight Assad.

I don't think the U.S. militarily taking out Assad is an option, or that it is even under consideration by Obama. If Obama announces a reformulated strategy that ups the priority of taking out Assad, I think he will propose a diplomatic or political strategy, rather than a militaristic one. He'll make it sound just tough enough to get approval for his arming and training funds, while holding to no combat troops. Airstrikes, "no fly zones" and increased commitments from coalition partners will just have to do.

Neither Assad nor ISIS is our problem or responsibility. We already bit off more than we can chew. We should scale it back, not dig deeper. I'm hoping for a stalemate so we can use the billions of dollars on other things.

< Michael Baden to Testify Before Ferguson Grand Jury | ISIS Leader al -Baghdadi Releases New Speech >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Obama Reviewing Syrian Stance as Stalemate Seems Likely | 14 comments (14 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Don't know if Miss Lindsey (5.00 / 2) (#4)
by KeysDan on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 01:55:34 PM EST

is drinking Kool-Aid, but whatever he is drinking, perhaps, mint juleps, it is coloring his thoughts with delusion and incoherence. Although, in fairness, Miss Lindsey is only, at this point, demanding "north of 10,000 troops." Union troops? His reasons are that we must get those ISIS guys since Syria is "a staging area to hit us at home."

It does "break his heart" to have to send troops back after the surge worked and we won the war (contrary to the conclusion of Lt. General (ret) Daniel Bolger, senior commander in Iraq and Afghanistan. Get the fainting couch ready.

Graham does acknowledge that an attempt to build an "Arab Army" to defeat ISIS without US troops is a waste of time (not to mention lives and money). But, we already built an Iraqi fighting force and "won" Guess we just have to keep on building--and building.

As for Syria, we must drive out Assad because that would deny ISIS the opportunity to train its troops in Syria. That's the ticket, Miss Lindsey. I think he has it. But, for those other pesky groups, like the Khorasan and those "Free Syrians."

Maybe, we should all have whatever Miss Lindsey is drinking.

Completely insane (none / 0) (#6)
by ruffian on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 04:00:01 PM EST

I don't even want what he is drinking. Who would want to live in that brain?


: You're assuming (none / 0) (#7)
by Zorba on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 05:01:18 PM EST

He has a brain.

We were never a player (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by Militarytracy on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 07:58:31 PM EST

So can't be our stalemate. Syria is not terrorists and terrorists aren't Syria. Syria in terms of who rules is about what the people of Syria agree on and choose. Our protecting ourselves by destroying terrorists seeking haven in Syria has nothing to do with who rules Syria at this time. Our preventing genocides when we can has nothing to do with who rules Syria at this time either. Not our stalemate, and can never really be a stalemate for the people of Syria, who apparently will fight until they reach a way to get along.

"not terrorists" (none / 0) (#13)
by thomas rogan on Mon Nov 17, 2014 at 10:31:27 PM EST

Syria is not terrorists. Assad is a war criminal, maybe, but I guess we don't care a whole lot about war criminals any more. Who cares about red lines anyway?


: So you want to send my husband in there? (none / 0) (#14)
by Militarytracy on Tue Nov 18, 2014 at 11:10:01 AM EST

For what? What do you think can be accomplished at this point? I mean Iraq isn't a sectarian hellhole now due to our efforts, let's make the lives of another nation even worse by pounding it with a sledge hammer. Our military isn't a bunch of neurosurgeons, they are sledge hammers. You can't fix what ails Syria with a sledge hammer. YOU can't fix it period. The people of Syria must fix themselves. The best you can do is stop genocide and fix YOUR democracy so others want to do what you have done.

A tangled web... (4.40 / 5) (#1)
by lentinel on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 06:21:10 AM EST

President Obama made these statements in April, May and June:

"Why is it that everybody's so eager to use military force?"

"The issue with respect to Syria is not simply a military issue."

"We cannot use force everywhere that a radical ideology takes root."

"What we're not going to be able to do is to play whack-a-mole and chase, uh, wherever, uh, extremists appear."

A few months later - - Obama opts for military force, for using force against radical ideologies, toppling Assad, and playing whack-a-mole all over the place.

The only difference between June and September was the volume of screeching from Republican warlords and their affiliates in the media and ghoulish corporate entities - a screeching which always has its effect on Mr. Obama who likes to ploy a middle ground. A middle ground between reality - which is reflected in his quotes above - and the self-serving fantasies over which the Republicans lick their lips.

Now, we're spending $300,000 an hour on the war on ISIS.
(That could go a long way to ridding the New York City Subway System of its rats and leaks.)

And now, that policy is in place, and Obama must defend it to a new nutty congress.

And we, the people, are in the crossfire between a bad policy and a potentially worse policy. Both, imo, window dressing for what really is going on - an unspoken agenda about power, money and oil.

Iraq. Spilling into Syria. Has a familiar ring.
Vietnam - spilling into Cambodia.

Once you've stepped into these messes, you're caught.
Lay down with the Republican coach-potato warriors, and you get up with mega-fleas.

: Well said, especially this (5.00 / 3) (#5)
by ruffian on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 03:58:22 PM EST

The only difference between June and September was the volume of screeching from Republican warlords and their affiliates in the media and ghoulish corporate entities - a screeching which always has its effect on Mr. Obama who likes to ploy a middle ground. A middle ground between reality - which is reflected in his quotes above - and the self-serving fantasies over which the Republicans lick their lips.
Certainly is exactly how it seems to me to have happened. It would almost be explainable if public opinion was being swayed by the republican screeching, but I don't believe it is. It is like he just can't stand having certain people mad at him. And the likes of us are not among those people.

: Nonsense (2.50 / 4) (#9)
by Jack203 on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 08:55:50 PM EST

"The only difference between June and September was the volume of screeching from Republican warlords and their affiliates in the media and ghoulish corporate entities"
Our only ally in the region, the Kurds, were being attacked by ISIS in both Syria and Iraq. Within 36 hours of the Kurds publicly begging for our help, Obama relented. He was doing his damndest to stay out of it.
Your fantasies are depressing Lentinel, but fear not because they are also wrong.

this is what a dead nation does (4.25 / 4) (#2)
by Dadler on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 10:29:16 AM EST

argue about who to kill on the other side of the planet while lying to and abusing its own citizens at home. this nation used to be great, now it's a run-of-the-mill dipsh*t like any other. we aren't even smart enough to know when to tell the rest of the world to phuck itself so we can actually make our own country something to genuinely be proud of ON THE WHOLE -- not in parts, not in pieces, not in some abstract dream, but on the whole. never gonna happen in my lifetime, because people with actual imaginations cannot be elected. RIP.

A government controlled by corporate entities. (4.00 / 3) (#3)
by lentinel on Thu Nov 13, 2014 at 01:07:27 PM EST

....people with actual imaginations cannot be elected.

I think that people with imagination could and would be elected if voters had a choice in the matter.


Hey Jack203... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by lentinel on Fri Nov 14, 2014 at 08:44:36 AM EST

So do you think that people with imagination can - or cannot be elected?

Do you know of candidates that are running who possess that quality?

Care to elaborate?


I've agreed with about 80-90% (none / 0) (#11)
by Jack203 on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 01:15:58 PM EST

of President Obama's decisions.

As a centrist, he's all I can ask for. A charismatic, well spoken, left-center moderate, and being of color is a major bonus.


: What you wrote (none / 0) (#12)
by lentinel on Sat Nov 15, 2014 at 05:05:49 PM EST

is totally unresponsive to the comment I wrote. Totally.
and this little gem

being of color is a major bonus.

is off the charts in the direction of racism.
Oof.