Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

News & Politics News & Politics

Obama Proceeds in Syria Without Popular Support...

Posted by on Aug. 27, 2013 at 6:49 PM
  • 84 Replies

 

Obama proceeds in Syria without popular support

What happens when American military action has neither public support nor congressional approval? Looks like we're getting ready to find out.

 

Americans did not much like President Obama's 2011 decision to intervene in the Libyan civil war, and the looming entry of American forces in Syria's conflict is shaping up to be even less popular. The consequences, especially with a president famously unwilling to put his own political clout on the line for national security policies, could be serious.

When Obama committed American might to the effort to depose Libyan despot Muammar Qaddafi, the plan was supported by a slim plurality of Americans. It was a far cry for the big majorities that had backed most prior U.S. military action, like the 76 percent who backed the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but 47 percent backing Libya strikes was at least something.

The Libyan intervention quickly lost popular support as American-backed Islamist rebels failed to knock out the Qaddafi regime. But that wasn't entirely unlike other American interventions, like Vietnam and Iraq, that started with popular support and saw it winnow over time.

So what about Syria?

A Reuters poll last week found popular support for entering the Syrian war was 9 percent. When Obama orders what is now seen as an inevitable attack on government forces there, he will be initiating what will likely be the first-ever military campaign of the modern era launched without popular support.

That's tricky enough, but doing so when notions of congressional authorization are now considered passé and when Syria and its allies are promising painful reprisals, Obama's creep toward war looks even more perilous. American air strikes could be part of setting off a larger conflagration in the region. How willing would Americans be to support a larger war effort that began under such conditions? What if peacekeepers are needed?

Republicans in support of an attack are quick to point out that Obama hasn't done enough to sell the war and argue for American intervention. And there's something to that. Obama's preferred political posture of being dragged into conflicts rather than leading the charge, as with his double surges in Afghanistan and Libya bombardments, doesn't help Americans to "rally 'round the flag."

But, c'mon. Nine percent? Obama could have been on a "Bomb Syria" bus tour last week rather than a campaign for increased domestic spending and still failed to nudge that number into positive territory.

Americans liked Obama's foreign policy better when they mistakenly thought he was a peacenik. War-weary and frustrated after the years spent struggling in Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans welcomed Obama's rejection of the Bush Doctrine for the Muslim World. They liked the sound of "nation building here at home." Less guns, more butter and Usama bin Laden in a body bag. Winner.

But as they have learned more about the Obama Doctrine for the region, Americans have recoiled. The president's plan for encouraging and empowering Islamist factions in the Middle East in a bid to midwife Western-style pluralism has not been what Americans are looking for.

Islamist militants killing Americans with impunity in Benghazi, Libya and the sea-sick cycle of regime change in Egypt suggest that Obama's plan for transitional Islamism is not much working. It is far from unreasonable for Americans to conclude that they are not interested in seeing Obama again intervene on the side of the Islamists in the hope that this time will work out better.

Given that Syria has weapons of mass destruction, formidable allies in Iran and Russia and is near enough to bomb Jerusalem, the idea of another Libya-style intervention looks unhappier still.

Voters are learning that liberal interventionists are interventionists too, and it's a lesson they're not very happy about.

The implicit promise of the post-Vietnam understanding of presidential military authority largely unchecked by Congress is that the wars will be popularly supported. What happens in the absence of such support will set a new course for foreign policy and the use of force.

Chris Stirewalt is digital politics editor for Fox News. Want his daily political newsletter, FOX News First in your inbox? Sign up here. To catch Chris live online daily at 11:30 a.m. ET, click here.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/27/obama-proceeds-in-syria-without-popular-support/#ixzz2dDF2952K

grandma B

by on Aug. 27, 2013 at 6:49 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
Ednarooni160
by Eds on Aug. 27, 2013 at 6:58 PM
3 moms liked this

Lets face it.. Obama is an accident waiting to happen.

denise3680
by Gold Member on Aug. 27, 2013 at 7:53 PM

So now because he is not promoting war as just another day in the park, he is not tough enough.  I have to ask how many of our troops are you guys willing to kill just to prove some idiotic point that we are tough guys?  Personally I am tired of watching my family members, husband, brothers, friends and their loved ones, shipped off to war that is never going to end:/  No more war and send our troops home.  Let then fix their own problems. 

143myboys9496
by Gold Member on Aug. 27, 2013 at 9:06 PM
2 moms liked this

 I'd say he's more of an accident looking for a SCENE.

Quoting Ednarooni160:

Lets face it.. Obama is an accident waiting to happen.

 

grandmab125
by Platinum Member on Aug. 27, 2013 at 9:38 PM
4 moms liked this

 This went right over your head, didn't it?

1.  Most Americans are against Obama getting us involved in another war.

2.  If you have been following the developments in the past year, you would know that only a few Senators, i.e., Lindsey Graham and John McCain want to get us involved.

3.  Obama is, once again, about to get us involved in another civil war, just as he did in Libya.....without the consent of Congress, per our Constitution.  That is against our laws.  Congress must first approve our involvement, except in the case where we have been attacked first.  Congress needs to be involved in this decision, so they can at least have some control over the situation....not let Obama run amok again.

4.  If Obama had not kept avoiding making a decision on Syria a year ago, this whole thing might be resolved by now.  He waited so long, drawing his imaginary lines in the sand, then doing nothing, that now it is too late to come out of this positively.

5.  We need to stay out of this mess.  If Obama had made the decision to get involved over a year ago, at least we would have been helping democratic rebels.  Now, he'll just be helping Al Qaeda led rebels.  Either way, the people in Syria are screwed now, and we will have angered Iran and Russia even more.

Quoting denise3680:

So now because he is not promoting war as just another day in the park, he is not tough enough.  I have to ask how many of our troops are you guys willing to kill just to prove some idiotic point that we are tough guys?  Personally I am tired of watching my family members, husband, brothers, friends and their loved ones, shipped off to war that is never going to end:/  No more war and send our troops home.  Let then fix their own problems. 

 

grandma B

tnmomofive
by Silver Member on Aug. 27, 2013 at 9:47 PM

He may help cause ww3.

Analeigh2012
by Silver Member on Aug. 27, 2013 at 10:52 PM
2 moms liked this
Yeah. This is a scary situation. Obama should have made a decision a year ago. Now, announcing he is going to bomb, only for a few hours, and we will not mandate a regime change. What the hell is the point of this action? On this, I agree with Sean Hannity - this s a huge mistake and all it will accomplish is weakening which will open the door for terrorist factions to take control. Very scary!
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
denise3680
by Gold Member on Aug. 28, 2013 at 5:32 AM
1 mom liked this



Quoting grandmab125:

 This went right over your head, didn't it?

1.  Most Americans are against Obama getting us involved in another war.

2.  If you have been following the developments in the past year, you would know that only a few Senators, i.e., Lindsey Graham and John McCain want to get us involved.

3.  Obama is, once again, about to get us involved in another civil war, just as he did in Libya.....without the consent of Congress, per our Constitution.  That is against our laws.  Congress must first approve our involvement, except in the case where we have been attacked first.  Congress needs to be involved in this decision, so they can at least have some control over the situation....not let Obama run amok again.

4.  If Obama had not kept avoiding making a decision on Syria a year ago, this whole thing might be resolved by now.  He waited so long, drawing his imaginary lines in the sand, then doing nothing, that now it is too late to come out of this positively.

5.  We need to stay out of this mess.  If Obama had made the decision to get involved over a year ago, at least we would have been helping democratic rebels.  Now, he'll just be helping Al Qaeda led rebels.  Either way, the people in Syria are screwed now, and we will have angered Iran and Russia even more.

Quoting denise3680:

So now because he is not promoting war as just another day in the park, he is not tough enough.  I have to ask how many of our troops are you guys willing to kill just to prove some idiotic point that we are tough guys?  Personally I am tired of watching my family members, husband, brothers, friends and their loved ones, shipped off to war that is never going to end:/  No more war and send our troops home.  Let then fix their own problems. 

 


I really do not give a flying shit what most people think, I am talking about me and mine.  I do not want to get involved and yet again send my husband off to fight in another war we should not get into, period.  You can be condescending all you want, but this is my opinion and mine alone.  You have yours, when you send your husband off to war or your son or your daughter, then you come talk to me, ok.  Until that happens I have ever right to oppose another stupid war.

DieselsMom
by Member on Aug. 28, 2013 at 5:34 AM

RIGHT..because fox news is reliable...Actually, a lot of American's DO support helping Syria...

Carpy
by Platinum Member on Aug. 28, 2013 at 6:21 AM
2 moms liked this


If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.

Quite an alliance! Was it not the Three Musketeers who shouted “All for one and one for all” each time they sought combat? This really should be the new battle cry if – or when – the statesmen of the Western world go to war against Bashar al-Assad.

The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the miniature warlords.

This, of course, will not be trumpeted by the Pentagon or the White House – nor, I suppose, by al-Qa’ida – though they are both trying to destroy Bashar. So are the Nusra front, one of al-Qa’ida’s affiliates. But it does raise some interesting possibilities.

Maybe the Americans should ask al-Qa’ida for intelligence help – after all, this is the group with “boots on the ground”, something the Americans have no interest in doing. And maybe al-Qa’ida could offer some target information facilities to the country which usually claims that the supporters of al-Qa’ida, rather than the Syrians, are the most wanted men in the world.

There will be some ironies, of course. While the Americans drone al-Qa’ida to death in Yemen and Pakistan – along, of course, with the usual flock of civilians – they will be giving them, with the help of Messrs Cameron, Hollande and the other Little General-politicians, material assistance in Syria by hitting al-Qa’ida’s enemies. Indeed, you can bet your bottom dollar that the one target the Americans will not strike in Syria will be al-Qa’ida or the Nusra front.

And our own Prime Minister will applaud whatever the Americans do, thus allying himself with al-Qa’ida, whose London bombings may have slipped his mind. Perhaps – since there is no institutional memory left among modern governments – Cameron has forgotten how similar are the sentiments being uttered by Obama and himself to those uttered by Bush  and Blair a decade ago, the same bland assurances, uttered with such self-confidence but without quite  enough evidence to make it stick.

In Iraq, we went to war on the basis of lies originally uttered by fakers and conmen. Now it’s war by YouTube. This doesn’t mean that the terrible images of the gassed and dying Syrian civilians are false. It does mean that any evidence to the contrary is going to have to be suppressed. For example, no-one is going to be interested in persistent reports in Beirut that three Hezbollah members – fighting alongside government troops in Damascus – were apparently struck down by the same gas on the same day, supposedly in tunnels. They are now said to be undergoing treatment in a Beirut hospital. So if Syrian government forces used gas, how come Hezbollah men might have been stricken too? Blowback?

And while we’re talking about institutional memory, hands up which of our jolly statesmen know what happened last time the Americans took on the Syrian government army? I bet they can’t remember. Well it happened in Lebanon when the US Air Force decided to bomb Syrian missiles in the Bekaa Valley on 4 December 1983. I recall this very well because I was here in Lebanon. An American A-6 fighter bomber was hit by a Syrian Strela missile – Russian made, naturally – and crash-landed in the Bekaa; its pilot, Mark Lange, was killed, its co-pilot, Robert Goodman, taken prisoner and freighted off to jail in Damascus. Jesse Jackson had to travel to Syria to get him back after almost a month amid many clichés about “ending the cycle of violence”. Another American plane – this time an A-7 – was also hit by Syrian fire but the pilot managed to eject over the Mediterranean where he was plucked from the water by a Lebanese fishing boat. His plane was also destroyed.

Sure, we are told that it will be a short strike on Syria, in and out, a couple of days. That’s what Obama likes to think. But think Iran. Think Hezbollah. I rather suspect – if Obama does go ahead – that this one will run and run.

denise3680
by Gold Member on Aug. 28, 2013 at 7:48 AM



Quoting grandmab125:

 This went right over your head, didn't it?

1.  Most Americans are against Obama getting us involved in another war.

2.  If you have been following the developments in the past year, you would know that only a few Senators, i.e., Lindsey Graham and John McCain want to get us involved.

3.  Obama is, once again, about to get us involved in another civil war, just as he did in Libya.....without the consent of Congress, per our Constitution.  That is against our laws.  Congress must first approve our involvement, except in the case where we have been attacked first.  Congress needs to be involved in this decision, so they can at least have some control over the situation....not let Obama run amok again.

4.  If Obama had not kept avoiding making a decision on Syria a year ago, this whole thing might be resolved by now.  He waited so long, drawing his imaginary lines in the sand, then doing nothing, that now it is too late to come out of this positively.

5.  We need to stay out of this mess.  If Obama had made the decision to get involved over a year ago, at least we would have been helping democratic rebels.  Now, he'll just be helping Al Qaeda led rebels.  Either way, the people in Syria are screwed now, and we will have angered Iran and Russia even more.

Quoting denise3680:

So now because he is not promoting war as just another day in the park, he is not tough enough.  I have to ask how many of our troops are you guys willing to kill just to prove some idiotic point that we are tough guys?  Personally I am tired of watching my family members, husband, brothers, friends and their loved ones, shipped off to war that is never going to end:/  No more war and send our troops home.  Let then fix their own problems. 

 

What could he have done to insure that this would have been resolved?  I have heard conservatives talk, and it is more than jsut those two you mentioned, about war and starting something else.  You are being condescending, but then complain he did nothing to prevent this, what are your solutions then, what should he have done?  IF not do it diplomatically, or threats, or talks, then what, the only option now is war, according to you guys, he is a chicken, he has no backbone, he this that or the other. I really could care a less, if you want to play I do not want war but then scream and complain about he did nothing and is letting children die, so be it, I am against this either way just like I was against going to Iraq.  It also appears taht you are not mad about going to war, but the fact that he may or may not get approval for drone attacks or boots on the ground?  So which is it, either you are against it, no matter how it is done or you are for going in boots and all?


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN