The United States of weakness
By ALEXANDER BURNS and JOHN F. HARRIS | 9/10/13 5:00 AM EDT
Red lines that may or may not be real, retaliatory strikes that may or may not be hours from launch, congressional debates that may or may not be necessary for the president to do what he wants—whatever that happens to be this hour.
Barack Obama’s unsteady handling of the Syria crisis has been an avert-your-gaze moment in the history of the modern presidency — highlighting his unsettled views and unattractive options in a way that has caused his enemies to cackle and supporters to cringe.
But the spotlight on Obama’s so-far flaccid performance has obscured a larger reality; the Syria episode has revealed the weakness of multiple institutions and would-be leaders in American life.
That the president and congressional leaders of both parties could be in agreement on a matter of national security — and that much of the country would shrug — is a historic event.
Read more: https://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/united-states-of-weakness-96518.html#ixzz2eUINmnm3
Some of my first TV memories are watching the evacuation of Saigon on Cronkite.
Let that sink in. The United States very publicly and visibly withdrew in utter defeat from a military conflict it had poured around 60,000 lives and countless capital and expendable resources.
Yet somehow showing restraint in this situation is a sign of weakness.
Last week Steve Lonegan called Syria an unjust war or some such, and in that thread I wondered how long Obama’s detractors would waffle, should Obama exercise the restraint that was being demanded at the time by his detractors.
I now have my answer!
Our fearless community organizer has spoken. Don’t ask him to lead. That’s not in his blood.
Lead where, #2? Where, in your infinite wisdom would you lead us?
Lead.
Or at least have a plan… any plan.
His foreign policy is akin to driftwood.
Just lead. Ok.
From what I gather, the plan is to consider all options and avoid doing anything rash. Seems reasonable. Unless you have some sons and daughters, possibly grandsons and daughters, you would like to sacrifice at Meggido?
Just because we could initially overpower the next three largest countries on earth if we wanted to, doesn’t mean we should try. There would be a whole lot of death and we’d ultimately lose.
https://www.theonion.com/articles/john-kerry-costs-us-defense-industry-400-billion,33815/
Well… just being a leader (even a bad leader) would be a step in the right direction.
What we have is a president who is easily manipulated and reactive with no real foreign policy goals or objectives.
A policy, a plan, a vision or even the exhibition of any leadership skills would give us a starting point for discussion and the taking of a position for or against that policy.
You can continue to incorrectly interpret my comments as “pro war”, but you would be wrong. You would also be wrong to interpret my comments as “anti war” or even as “neutral”.
It is impossible to take a position on the president’s policy since it changes daily and will likely change again.
For instance, take the speech last night – its initial objective was to convince the public (and congress) to quickly vote on an approval to strike Syria, but it changed to a speech to tell Congress to delay any vote. This entire turnaround in position was due to an off the cuff comment made by the Secretary of State (which opposed an earlier position taken by the president) and an opportunistic position taken by Putin to keep his man in power.
This is an administration with a “driftwood” foreign policy — aka no foreign policy at all or at best a chaotic, unintelligible foreign policy.