Dances with Tomahawks
8/9/13 22:08![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
abomvubuso.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsEver since the very first year of president Obama's first term, when he managed to pass his biggest reform, the health-care reform, at the cost of a convoluted and deeply polarising process, one question has occupied the minds of both his critics and supporters. Did the 44th US president get a very unlucky hand of cards that couldn't possibly be played in a better way, or was Obama in fact unprepared for the task, and is he a confused and indecisive statesman who's only making the situation both at home and in the world more difficult to handle?
Syria is one fine example in that respect. Everyone is talking about Syria, so let's look at the situation there, Obama-wise. First the president made a public promise that he'd punish Assad's regime very harshly if he came across evidence of the use of chemical weapons; then he suddenly decided to share this decision with Congress. For his advocates, this means he has restored the constitutional right of Congress to decide upon the questions of war and peace, which many of his predecessors had ignored, this way strengthening American democracy in the long run, regardless of the short-term results. The camp of his critics is much larger and more diverse, their arguments varying from a deliberate undermining of the US image in the world to an escape from responsibility in a situation that to a great extent the president had put himself in on his own, due to his imprudence.
Whether Obama just has bad political luck or he's aggravating the situation with his (in)actions, is far from being a mere theoretical issue. After all, he still has 3 years in office. Meanwhile, apart from the Syrian crisis there are a number of tough decisions to be made on the domestic front which would have consequences globally. Among them, raising the debt ceiling once more (without which the US would no longer be able to serve their debts), a looming decision that promises to be much more dramatic than the one in 2011. Also the appointment of a new chairman of the Federal Reserve; passing immigration reform, etc.
Of course we can't deny a certain lack of luck that's been haunting Obama's administration since day one. The economic recession took away much of the energy and political resources of his team, and limited the ambitions of the White House as a whole. The GOP, which is currently passing through an identity crisis after losing two presidential elections, has blocked any attempts for compromise in Congress, and is promising to doom Obama's second term to a painful period of stagnated inaction, much more so than Term #1. Meanwhile, Putin has "re-claimed" Russia once more, and is taking a course of full-on confrontation with the West, contrary to Washington's initial plans for "Restart" of the Russo-American relations. And, despite Obama's stated desire for military withdrawal from the major world conflicts, the continuous instability in the Middle East practically doesn't allow America to abandon its role of a global cop, lest it would like these crises to haunt it and come biting it on the ass. Even the now famous Obama "red line" phrase about the use of chemical weapons in Syria actually was meant to keep the US as far away from that bloody civil war as possible. Only, someone in Damascus apparently has failed to get the memo. And they may've had their reasons to take such bold actions.
On the other hand, last week Obama put his otherwise poor luck to the test by seeking permission from that same hopelessly divided Congress before he could act. Although surprising, his personal decision to postpone any military action until a vote was passed in Congress, looks kind of logical. Being so tired of non-stop wars after a decade of military engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American public in their majority is opposed to getting involved in yet another conflict. Even a severely limited intervention is meeting fierce opposition both among America's allies and the US military itself (the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey is among the most prominent skeptics), because it's unclear what the end strategy for stopping the bloodshed would be. And now after the humiliating blow that the prime-minister of the main US ally, David Cameron suffered when he lost a war vote at the British Parliament, Obama's personal "red line" may've been crossed.
One might argue that Obama has chosen to turn to Congress at such a decisive moment for several reasons. Some may be related to domestic politics, others to the fact that he wanted to share responsibility, or simply to buy some more time. Seen from another angle, that could be viewed as an attempt to restore some semblance of normalcy in US political life, and respect political norms that were being ignored or outright spit upon for many years by both "hawks" and self-perceived "doves" in the White House. And that could be an important precedent, a manner of ruling that the president is trying to set forward.
Seen from the opposite angle though, Obama's actions are his way of covering his back. He has decided to turn to Congress because the Republicans were pressuring him, and the polls clearly show that the American people do not want military action of any sort. The GOP is naturally very critical of Obama, so in this way he may be trying to force them to vote in favour of intervention. So, if things go wrong, they wouldn't be able to accuse him of anything.
Given the fierce opposition, political isolation and the numerous questions "what next", the president has preferred to look for the opinion of the US public. Moreover, at his time as a professor in constitutional law and then a senator, he had stated many times that an end should be put to the unhealthy practice of presidents of circumventing the key prerogative of the chief legislature in the land to make decisions on the issues of war and peace. So, showing some consistency might be useful in that respect. If there's one lesson from the Vietnam war, it is that the unpopularity of a war at home could turn out to be much more destabilising than the strongest external foe.
But even if it may be correct, Obama's reflex has crystallised after a long series of unnecessary and outright harmful turnovers. First, after more than two years of resistance to any intervention in Syria, now in August the administration suddenly chose to escalate their rhetoric, and it suddenly turned out Assad's punishment, which couldn't even wait for the UN report, could actually wait for a vote in Congress. Whatever our opinion on all other policies, and no matter which camp we might find ourselves in, Obama-wise, it would be hard to conclude that the way this administration has been handling the Syrian issue for the last year is some example of proficient foreign policy. Whichever angle we look at it from, it looks more like amateurism, and the bad thing is, this is not some game one could afford to fail at, then drop another coin and start anew. There are hundreds of thousands of human lives at stake here.
It was exactly Obama's approach to making and pushing decisions that has become the focus of public debate now. Undeniably, the potential political gains for the president are huge. If, after an intense debate, the White House wins the battle for shared responsibility with Congress, that would strengthen his position and potentially allow him to break the GOP blockade on a number of other debates: from raising the debt ceiling and passing the new budget, to picking up the next Fed chairman, or even immigration reform. On the foreign front, the demonstration that America considers its stated moral principles more important than the temptation to wield the police baton, might help polish the rusty international image of the "world's leading democracy" a little bit.
However, the majority of observers have their doubts about how realistic these hopes are. The recent moves of Obama's administration on the Syrian issue look so devoid of consistency, they suggest not just a bad combination of circumstances, but they scream of a system error, and that's troubling. The public agonising of the White House around the decision for attack has provided Obama's detractors with mounting ammo ever since the end of August. Even if a military strike is eventually approved, the whole process has shown to America and the world that Obama's important decisions are susceptible to pressure and manipulation. Something that promises to paralyse any prospects of decisive action by the administration, come the next crisis.
Meanwhile, the current desire to talk with Congress couldn't be compared to previous meagre attempts of the sort. One might wonder how would've Obama's achievements looked like, had he put even a quarter of his current efforts for creating a coalition of the willing, in all his previous political battles. The endless political dancing around Syria has certainly reinforced the Republicans' conviction that Obama is not a president of action. Even if they swallow their pride and support military action eventually, they'd hardly allow this administration to win any political points from all this. And the world, which is now seeing America as a tired global policeman, will hardly gain any confidence about Washington's consistency and firm pursuit of principled positions.
And Secretary of State John Kerry is also contributing to this confusion. Before the Commission on Foreign Policy at the Senate, he not only did not deny the possibility of sending ground troops in Syria, but it looked as if he actually opened the door to it with an assertion that "all options remain on the table". So, both America and the world keep pondering what exactly is Obama's strategy for Syria. And what's worse, they're starting to suspect that even he doesn't know that.
Granted, in politics and war, the final outcome could often be a matter of mere luck; as for the assessment of the future generations, it could be very different from that of the present ones. A confused process of decision-making, or even a failed vote in Congress, is hardly the worst that could happen to a president, sure. Probably few would deny today that it would've been better for Lyndon Johnson if he had lost the vote for expanding the US mission in Vietnam in 1964. So the question whether Obama is an inept statesman or just a very unlucky guy, still remains wide open.
Ps. Couldn't resist using that tag, you know... :)
Syria is one fine example in that respect. Everyone is talking about Syria, so let's look at the situation there, Obama-wise. First the president made a public promise that he'd punish Assad's regime very harshly if he came across evidence of the use of chemical weapons; then he suddenly decided to share this decision with Congress. For his advocates, this means he has restored the constitutional right of Congress to decide upon the questions of war and peace, which many of his predecessors had ignored, this way strengthening American democracy in the long run, regardless of the short-term results. The camp of his critics is much larger and more diverse, their arguments varying from a deliberate undermining of the US image in the world to an escape from responsibility in a situation that to a great extent the president had put himself in on his own, due to his imprudence.
Whether Obama just has bad political luck or he's aggravating the situation with his (in)actions, is far from being a mere theoretical issue. After all, he still has 3 years in office. Meanwhile, apart from the Syrian crisis there are a number of tough decisions to be made on the domestic front which would have consequences globally. Among them, raising the debt ceiling once more (without which the US would no longer be able to serve their debts), a looming decision that promises to be much more dramatic than the one in 2011. Also the appointment of a new chairman of the Federal Reserve; passing immigration reform, etc.
Of course we can't deny a certain lack of luck that's been haunting Obama's administration since day one. The economic recession took away much of the energy and political resources of his team, and limited the ambitions of the White House as a whole. The GOP, which is currently passing through an identity crisis after losing two presidential elections, has blocked any attempts for compromise in Congress, and is promising to doom Obama's second term to a painful period of stagnated inaction, much more so than Term #1. Meanwhile, Putin has "re-claimed" Russia once more, and is taking a course of full-on confrontation with the West, contrary to Washington's initial plans for "Restart" of the Russo-American relations. And, despite Obama's stated desire for military withdrawal from the major world conflicts, the continuous instability in the Middle East practically doesn't allow America to abandon its role of a global cop, lest it would like these crises to haunt it and come biting it on the ass. Even the now famous Obama "red line" phrase about the use of chemical weapons in Syria actually was meant to keep the US as far away from that bloody civil war as possible. Only, someone in Damascus apparently has failed to get the memo. And they may've had their reasons to take such bold actions.
On the other hand, last week Obama put his otherwise poor luck to the test by seeking permission from that same hopelessly divided Congress before he could act. Although surprising, his personal decision to postpone any military action until a vote was passed in Congress, looks kind of logical. Being so tired of non-stop wars after a decade of military engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American public in their majority is opposed to getting involved in yet another conflict. Even a severely limited intervention is meeting fierce opposition both among America's allies and the US military itself (the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin Dempsey is among the most prominent skeptics), because it's unclear what the end strategy for stopping the bloodshed would be. And now after the humiliating blow that the prime-minister of the main US ally, David Cameron suffered when he lost a war vote at the British Parliament, Obama's personal "red line" may've been crossed.
One might argue that Obama has chosen to turn to Congress at such a decisive moment for several reasons. Some may be related to domestic politics, others to the fact that he wanted to share responsibility, or simply to buy some more time. Seen from another angle, that could be viewed as an attempt to restore some semblance of normalcy in US political life, and respect political norms that were being ignored or outright spit upon for many years by both "hawks" and self-perceived "doves" in the White House. And that could be an important precedent, a manner of ruling that the president is trying to set forward.
Seen from the opposite angle though, Obama's actions are his way of covering his back. He has decided to turn to Congress because the Republicans were pressuring him, and the polls clearly show that the American people do not want military action of any sort. The GOP is naturally very critical of Obama, so in this way he may be trying to force them to vote in favour of intervention. So, if things go wrong, they wouldn't be able to accuse him of anything.
Given the fierce opposition, political isolation and the numerous questions "what next", the president has preferred to look for the opinion of the US public. Moreover, at his time as a professor in constitutional law and then a senator, he had stated many times that an end should be put to the unhealthy practice of presidents of circumventing the key prerogative of the chief legislature in the land to make decisions on the issues of war and peace. So, showing some consistency might be useful in that respect. If there's one lesson from the Vietnam war, it is that the unpopularity of a war at home could turn out to be much more destabilising than the strongest external foe.
But even if it may be correct, Obama's reflex has crystallised after a long series of unnecessary and outright harmful turnovers. First, after more than two years of resistance to any intervention in Syria, now in August the administration suddenly chose to escalate their rhetoric, and it suddenly turned out Assad's punishment, which couldn't even wait for the UN report, could actually wait for a vote in Congress. Whatever our opinion on all other policies, and no matter which camp we might find ourselves in, Obama-wise, it would be hard to conclude that the way this administration has been handling the Syrian issue for the last year is some example of proficient foreign policy. Whichever angle we look at it from, it looks more like amateurism, and the bad thing is, this is not some game one could afford to fail at, then drop another coin and start anew. There are hundreds of thousands of human lives at stake here.
It was exactly Obama's approach to making and pushing decisions that has become the focus of public debate now. Undeniably, the potential political gains for the president are huge. If, after an intense debate, the White House wins the battle for shared responsibility with Congress, that would strengthen his position and potentially allow him to break the GOP blockade on a number of other debates: from raising the debt ceiling and passing the new budget, to picking up the next Fed chairman, or even immigration reform. On the foreign front, the demonstration that America considers its stated moral principles more important than the temptation to wield the police baton, might help polish the rusty international image of the "world's leading democracy" a little bit.
However, the majority of observers have their doubts about how realistic these hopes are. The recent moves of Obama's administration on the Syrian issue look so devoid of consistency, they suggest not just a bad combination of circumstances, but they scream of a system error, and that's troubling. The public agonising of the White House around the decision for attack has provided Obama's detractors with mounting ammo ever since the end of August. Even if a military strike is eventually approved, the whole process has shown to America and the world that Obama's important decisions are susceptible to pressure and manipulation. Something that promises to paralyse any prospects of decisive action by the administration, come the next crisis.
Meanwhile, the current desire to talk with Congress couldn't be compared to previous meagre attempts of the sort. One might wonder how would've Obama's achievements looked like, had he put even a quarter of his current efforts for creating a coalition of the willing, in all his previous political battles. The endless political dancing around Syria has certainly reinforced the Republicans' conviction that Obama is not a president of action. Even if they swallow their pride and support military action eventually, they'd hardly allow this administration to win any political points from all this. And the world, which is now seeing America as a tired global policeman, will hardly gain any confidence about Washington's consistency and firm pursuit of principled positions.
And Secretary of State John Kerry is also contributing to this confusion. Before the Commission on Foreign Policy at the Senate, he not only did not deny the possibility of sending ground troops in Syria, but it looked as if he actually opened the door to it with an assertion that "all options remain on the table". So, both America and the world keep pondering what exactly is Obama's strategy for Syria. And what's worse, they're starting to suspect that even he doesn't know that.
Granted, in politics and war, the final outcome could often be a matter of mere luck; as for the assessment of the future generations, it could be very different from that of the present ones. A confused process of decision-making, or even a failed vote in Congress, is hardly the worst that could happen to a president, sure. Probably few would deny today that it would've been better for Lyndon Johnson if he had lost the vote for expanding the US mission in Vietnam in 1964. So the question whether Obama is an inept statesman or just a very unlucky guy, still remains wide open.
Ps. Couldn't resist using that tag, you know... :)
