Personally, I've stopped trying to figure Obama out. The man has done the opposite of what he's said too many times to treat his own words as a reliable predictor of what he really believes. (Who knew "change" described his future positions?) But whether he is deliberately trying to escalate U.S. involvement, as Sullivan seems to think, or just prolonging the slaughter in Syria, as Drezner believes, his actions will be just the latest disappointment to the anti-war liberals who helped elect him. They'll also be another example of a president making a decision that would be better debated and voted on by Congress.
Friday, June 14, 2013
Quote of the Day: Obama on Syria
A thought:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Given the fact and perception of Sunni extremists in the Syrian insurgency, the devastation they caused in post-Saddam Iraq, and current-day terrorist attacks in Iraq that may be related to the terrorist surge in Syria, I wonder how Obama's decision will play in Iraq?
It would seem to put to death any lingering alliance between the US and post-Saddam Iraq.
The set of choices was never easy. Of course, making a poor choice from a set of worsening choices explains Bush's initiative-grabbing Freedom Agenda and why we were committed to the peace operations in post-war Iraq. A rational matching of means to ends can be expensive. Retaining the ends but going (relatively bean counter) cheap and feckless on the means may be politically expedient in the (very) short term, but in the long run, it's penny wise, pound foolish.
As Hillary Clinton predicted in the Democratic primaries, the Obama administration has lacked any long-term coherence in its foreign policy, and instead reacted in ways that seem to want the US to fail in our foreign policy.
To clarify:
"Retaining the ends but going (relatively bean counter) cheap and feckless on the means may be politically expedient in the (very) short term, but in the long run, it's penny wise, pound foolish." = Obama's foreign policy.
Post a Comment