Syria: The Price of Politics

PoliticsThumbSmby RobL
An excellent review of the current predicament the President finds himself in. George Friedman at Stratfor consistent provides excellent thoughtful non-partisan analyses of current strategic issues. Here he demonstrates the inherent risks of sacrificing national security for political expedience and why the President finds himself in a lose-lose situation.
Unfortunately his loss is the nation’s loss. Thus bringing home the point that Americans really do need to pay attention to know who and what they are voting for. The wages of ignorance and insincerity are our very bones, blood and bodies.
Of particular frustration to me this morning is the Administration’s witless telegraphing its intentions and giving Russia and China ample time to arm Syria with the best anti-aircraft missiles • (880 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Syria: The Price of Politics

  1. Black JEM says:

    A rather interesting analysis.

    It gives the president the benefit of the doubt but does call him out on having placed himself in a box.

    Obviously I am less inclined to give him a break because he himself was none to generous with his predecessor when Obama was in the Senate. In addition, it was easy to conclude that any red line you draw would be tripped, because you have too many actors in the region wanting to do so. Once again demonstrating that he is none too bright, a failing he shares with whoever is advising him on foreign policy.

    So while it pains me to realize that the US is going to look stupid as this plays out, and that some of our young men and women are going to be placed in harm’s way needlessly due to the incompetence of our current president; I am somewhat relieved to know that this will eliminate more of his dwindling supply of political capital, it will depress his base, and provide the GOP with more manuevering room in the budget battle to come.

    • RobL_V2 RobL_V2 says:

      Yes Freidman is the master of the non partisan critique. He can border on the obsequious by omission (of fault assignment) but I guess that’s how you remain viable as a nonpartisan think tank.

      But I find his critiques insightful and always leave me with a greater awareness of the variables then prior to my reading.

      I hope your analysis is correct; Obama’s failure to avoid Syrian entanglement will give conservatives room to box in other failures and slow the hemorrhaging.

      I have not agreed with Obama on anything beyond his nabbing of Bin-Laden. True that was a no brainier but given he is Obama, it must have been a very hard call for him so some credit is due. That held true until his indecisiveness presented itself on Syria. In this regard his bumbling lead from behind naive windbag nature was perfect. Sure it was foolish to offer rhetorical redline rubbish but overall he could do nothing and get away with it. But I fear his perpetual desire to not ‘waste’ a crisis and belief he can insert himself into any endeavor for the better will get the better of him (and us). As he has exceeded the Carteresque knack for making the wrong move every time and everything he touches turns not to dust but to death, I can only expect the same in Syria.

      • Black JEM says:

        I don’t disagree that we have very little to gain with an engagement in Syria – I hope they keep killing one another instead of innocents.

        So his natural desire to not get involved I felt would be an advantage here as opposed to a McCain type – “bomb ’em!” But then he drew the line – oof! Stupid, stupid, stupid.

        Even when a situation plays to his strengths he still screws it up.

      • faba calculo says:

        “I have not agreed with Obama on anything beyond his nabbing of Bin-Laden. True that was a no brainier but given he is Obama, it must have been a very hard call for him so some credit is due.”

        Whether or not to authorize that attack would have been a hard call for anyone. It wasn’t for sure that the guy they were looking at was bin Ladin. Nor was it for sure that the attack force would be able to get in, do its job, and get out prior to the arrival of the Pakistani armed forces, whom, for good reasons, he had not altered ahead of time.

        Let the attack force go into that house, shoot it up, kill people, and then bin Ladin NOT turn out to there, you’d have had a massive problem on your hands. The the attack force then get into a fire fight with the Pakistanis (or, worse, be captured by them), and Obama would have been looking at the worse foreign policy screw-up of his career.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *