As the horrors reported from Syria have become the focus of news, both in the U.S. and abroad, we've watched, listened, and read political pundits of many kinds insist that America MUST take military action in Syria. The rumor from many sources is that a temporary bombing campaign may even begin today.
Some pundits don't even seem to care whether unilateral action by the U.S. would be legal. Others have even drawn up maps, as though this were some kind of role-playing game. Still others, like normally humorous and satirical media group The Onion, have put forward pieces that seem less like satire, and more like serious commentary.
In the end, too many pundits both in the U.S. and abroad are anxiously pushing President Obama and the U.S. toward a dangerous political cliff, effectively screaming that SOMEBODY must DO something about Syria NOW, NOW, NOW - meaning that they think America should jump into the quagmire and fix another nation's problems.
This demand for a Supercop - and the inevitable condemnation that would surely come for acting like a Supercop - isn't a new perspective. In fact, we said almost exactly that about two-and-a-half years ago, when many of the same chickenhawk commentators were screaming that America MUST "do something" about Libya.
Over the years, we've found that most chickenhawks have outstanding records of avoiding military service, or really conflict of almost any kind. Think of them as the blowhard at the bar who screams the loudest for his team to kill the other guys, yet he's near even played a game of two-hand touch football himself.
There are advantages in life to having been in a few scraps, including the wisdom to know when to be quiet, and when to be calm and blunt about the truth.
Matthew Duss at The American Prospect was blunt about the truth, saying right at the top of his commentary that the benefits of a U.S. military strike against Syria don't outweigh the costs. Duss also quotes political scientist Jonathan Mercer, for those people who think screaming about America's credibility would be damaged if we don't go into Syria - the international political version of "What will they think of me if they call me chicken and I don't DO something?"
Erik Voeten also has a great round-up of sound punditry at The Monkey Cage that effectively debunks most major arguments about U.S. legal involvement in Syria.
Finally, Aaron David Miller also has a great piece in Foreign Policy that mirrors a discussion we had among our staff earlier this week - that America has limited options, limited interest, and limited reason to get involved in Syria.
In the end, no one knows exactly what President Obama will choose to do, except him. That said, it may be helpful to look at President Obama's actions in similar situations. As we noted multiple times back in 2011, President Obama continues to want to lessen the role of America as worldwide supercop - not increase it.
It's no question that what's happening in Syria is awful. It was awful when it began happening in 2011 - but we don't remember seeing The Onion or most of the other pundits screaming for an instant resolution one way or the other back then.
If having an instant answer to the problem in Syria is SO critically important right at this time for those pundits and critics pushing Obama for action, we've got a great suggestion for them.
You go first this time.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query supercop. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query supercop. Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Friday, October 21, 2011
Enjoying The Moment, For The Right Reason
Normally on Friday, we attempt to keep things a bit lighter - and to a limited degree, we're leaning toward the positive today.
After all, it is a Friday, so we've got a weekend awaiting us at the end of our workday. There's another Husker football game tomorrow, which we plan on enjoying. Some of our staff are already on a short vacation, visiting family halfway across the country (including a relatively new addition to the family). And...?
We get to say 'We told you so.'
While we certainly don't revel in violence or death, we do believe the capture and subsequent death of former Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi is a good thing, in a number of ways.
To start with, the revolution going on in Libya is now done. At least the shooting. Mostly. Any obligation that U.S. and NATO forces had to that conflict has now been thoroughly fulfilled. That means the French and British forces that were assisting the Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC) on the ground can rapidly transition to their homes. The American air support and drone bomber forces can also pack up their equipment and come back to the United States.
That isn't why we're saying 'We told you so' though.
When we first wrote about the fall of Libya in this commentary nearly eight months ago, we noted that the Libyan people were quite unhappy with Mr. Gadhafi, and had been so for some time. When he needed to be removed from his position, it had to be the Libyans that needed to do it - not an outside force from France or Britain or NATO. And while NATO did bomb his caravan just before Gadhafi was captured and killed, his capture and death came at the hands of his own people, as we'd thought it should.
That isn't why we're saying 'We told you so' either.
We're saying "We told you so" today for a commentary we wrote seven months ago today, along with a cartoon that made very clear that Mr. Gadhafi's time was up.
In that earlier commentary, we also noted that President Obama was beginning a process of helping the world understand that America no longer needs to play "Supercop" at the first sign of ANY danger. As Thursday's events proved, there are many other countries who have more than enough ability and capability to fill roles that were once thought to be exclusively reserved for the U.S.
For many years now, Americans from both the left and the right have commented that we we can no longer play "Supercop" to the world, for a whole host of reasons. Still, no American leader had taken us down that path successfully - until now. Without loss of American lives. Within our budget for such events. And within a short time period.
That's exactly what we said seven months ago, that President Obama would do.
We understand - there are still many detractors who can't bear to give President Obama credit for ANYTHING. If Obama walked on water, these wailing whiners would cry that he couldn't swim.
Now, however, as President Obama has indeed succeeded, as we thought he would, the only thing most of his critics can do is float balloons full of wishes and hot air, while our President turns his focus back to our most pressing issue - getting his Jobs bill passed.
It's usually good to win and be right. It's even better to win and be right for the right reasons.
After all, it is a Friday, so we've got a weekend awaiting us at the end of our workday. There's another Husker football game tomorrow, which we plan on enjoying. Some of our staff are already on a short vacation, visiting family halfway across the country (including a relatively new addition to the family). And...?
We get to say 'We told you so.'
While we certainly don't revel in violence or death, we do believe the capture and subsequent death of former Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi is a good thing, in a number of ways.
To start with, the revolution going on in Libya is now done. At least the shooting. Mostly. Any obligation that U.S. and NATO forces had to that conflict has now been thoroughly fulfilled. That means the French and British forces that were assisting the Libyan National Transitional Council (NTC) on the ground can rapidly transition to their homes. The American air support and drone bomber forces can also pack up their equipment and come back to the United States.
That isn't why we're saying 'We told you so' though.
When we first wrote about the fall of Libya in this commentary nearly eight months ago, we noted that the Libyan people were quite unhappy with Mr. Gadhafi, and had been so for some time. When he needed to be removed from his position, it had to be the Libyans that needed to do it - not an outside force from France or Britain or NATO. And while NATO did bomb his caravan just before Gadhafi was captured and killed, his capture and death came at the hands of his own people, as we'd thought it should.
That isn't why we're saying 'We told you so' either.
We're saying "We told you so" today for a commentary we wrote seven months ago today, along with a cartoon that made very clear that Mr. Gadhafi's time was up.
In that earlier commentary, we also noted that President Obama was beginning a process of helping the world understand that America no longer needs to play "Supercop" at the first sign of ANY danger. As Thursday's events proved, there are many other countries who have more than enough ability and capability to fill roles that were once thought to be exclusively reserved for the U.S.
For many years now, Americans from both the left and the right have commented that we we can no longer play "Supercop" to the world, for a whole host of reasons. Still, no American leader had taken us down that path successfully - until now. Without loss of American lives. Within our budget for such events. And within a short time period.
That's exactly what we said seven months ago, that President Obama would do.
We understand - there are still many detractors who can't bear to give President Obama credit for ANYTHING. If Obama walked on water, these wailing whiners would cry that he couldn't swim.
Now, however, as President Obama has indeed succeeded, as we thought he would, the only thing most of his critics can do is float balloons full of wishes and hot air, while our President turns his focus back to our most pressing issue - getting his Jobs bill passed.
It's usually good to win and be right. It's even better to win and be right for the right reasons.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Uncle Sam Is Not Your Janitor
America may be on the verge of yet another war - something the American people don't want - but you wouldn't know it if you checked the U.S. news media. Monitoring America's major legitimate news sources, only a few are even talking about that uneasy feeling we're having about Syria, that the ghosts of pre-war eras of the past are walking among us again.
The stories our colleagues are covering do include some important topics, like the announcement by NBA player Jason Collins that he's gay - the first out and active player in the NBA, or any major professional men's sport in the U.S. That's a topic we'll likely revisit ourselves later this week.
The continued cowardly actions of Congress in dealing with the effects of sequestration also grabbed some of the headlines, as did the Elizabeth Colbert-Busch smackdown of Mark Sanford at the debate in South Carolina, and the story of Justice Sandra Day O'Conner finally admitting the Supreme Court's 2000 Bush v. Gore decision seriously harmed the legitimacy of the Court.
Still, of all the major U.S. newspapers and other legitimate news organizations, not a single one over the last ten hours prominently featured the fact that the world once again appears to be waiting on the U.S. to clean up the ongoing mess in Syria.
That wasn't the case last weekend, when some of the same Republicans who got us into the mess in Iraq were again banging the war drums on the Sunday shows.
On Fox, several guests made it clear how they think America needs to get involved in Syria militarily. Loyal conservative Bill Kristol even called President Obama 'irresponsible' for not wanting to rush into war. Republican Rep. Mike Rogers insisted on ABC that some action be taken by the U.S. to help cleanup the situation in Syria. Sen. John McCain tried to have it both ways, saying that putting U.S. troops in Syria would be the "worst thing the United States could do," but also insisting that Syrians would "take revenge" on America if we didn't invade.
Meanwhile, the Syrian elite remain mostly unaffected by the civil war raging in their own country. All this while the leader of last nation we've been trying to help for over a decade - Afghanistan - admitted the U.S. has been wasting millions trying and failing to bribe their way to peace in his country.
We're aware of America's place as a world leader, but as we've pointed out previously, more than once, America can no longer be counted upon to be the world's sole policeman. What's more, America has already been supporting the rebels in Syria for some time - just without putting U.S. soldiers on the ground there, in harm's way.
The rest of the world needs to learn that they cannot scream at America to clean up every mess around the world - and then scream at America when and if we do intervene to try and clean up the mess in question.
There are many nations that are competent and have more of a stake in conflicts going on near them. Israel, Iran, Turkey, Jordan, and Egypt all have far more to lose if Syria remains a war-torn nation for years. What's more, some of those nations could earn international praise if they successfully attempt to help Syrians clean up the mess the Assad regime has left there.
The days of America as getting dirty up to our proverbial elbows as worldwide political janitor and supercop are ending. We'll still help, sure.
But it's time everyone else learned to grab a political mop and bucket, and do a bit more political cleanup themselves.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Red Lines & Reality
For most of the last week, we've discussed the looming potential for military action by the U.S. in Syria, at least mentioning the subject, if not focusing on the subject every day we've published.
We've discussed the pundit class who continue to push for military action and the world that wants America to be their Supercop. We also discussed the reticence of many in Congress to get involved, and - spurred by comments from Greg Sargent - we came up with specific examples of why the American people might be skeptical of their government, outside of the disastrous and politically polarizing war in Iraq.
While we were discussing these topics with you, the Obama Administration has continued to drag a feckless and selfish Congress and a screaming American public towards the responsibilities of a very definite red line that our nation agreed to long ago.
Excluding a few of our more intelligent media colleagues, there's been very little discussion by either pundits or politicians of the reality behind that red line. President Obama however, addressed that red line reality directly during a press conference in Stockholm, Sweden on Wednesday. The President pointedly said, "I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line." Obama continued, "My credibility’s not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line."
This argument by President Obama, and those in his administration who are tasked with carrying out his instructions - including Secretaries Kerry and Hagel - may indeed be the only valid part of the argument in favor of action against the Syrian government of Bashar Al-Assad.
As Al Jazeera America outlined, everyone from the Arab League to the U.K., and from China to our allies in Europe continues insisting that SOMETHING should be done to enforce international law. Even the Pope is saying that SOMETHING should be done. Meanwhile, not a single nation or non-state actor has stepped up and offered to take the same amount of risk as the U.S. in enforcing the international law on chemical weapons.
That is the red line that the world, as a collective group of nations, has decided to go beyond; Boldly, selfishly, and with sniveling cowardice - with the exception of President Obama.
No matter what you say about Obama, the one thing you cannot honestly state is that - especially in this case - he has abandoned America's moral and ethical responsibilities to agreements this nation has previously made to its citizens, or to the world at large.
As a staff, we still vehemently oppose unilateral U.S. action in Syria. We do not think any plan that will pass Congress will achieve the goal of penalizing Syria's Assad effectively for breaking international law.
As a matter of fact and principle, however, President Obama is completely and unequivocally correct in dragging Americans to accept the reality of the red line of international law.
If a significant majority of nations around the world are NOT willing to take a significant part in enforcing what they claim to be a key international law, then that international law simply does not have any validity.
That is the real red line every nation is crossing right now, including the United States.
We've discussed the pundit class who continue to push for military action and the world that wants America to be their Supercop. We also discussed the reticence of many in Congress to get involved, and - spurred by comments from Greg Sargent - we came up with specific examples of why the American people might be skeptical of their government, outside of the disastrous and politically polarizing war in Iraq.
While we were discussing these topics with you, the Obama Administration has continued to drag a feckless and selfish Congress and a screaming American public towards the responsibilities of a very definite red line that our nation agreed to long ago.
Excluding a few of our more intelligent media colleagues, there's been very little discussion by either pundits or politicians of the reality behind that red line. President Obama however, addressed that red line reality directly during a press conference in Stockholm, Sweden on Wednesday. The President pointedly said, "I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line." Obama continued, "My credibility’s not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line."
This argument by President Obama, and those in his administration who are tasked with carrying out his instructions - including Secretaries Kerry and Hagel - may indeed be the only valid part of the argument in favor of action against the Syrian government of Bashar Al-Assad.
As Al Jazeera America outlined, everyone from the Arab League to the U.K., and from China to our allies in Europe continues insisting that SOMETHING should be done to enforce international law. Even the Pope is saying that SOMETHING should be done. Meanwhile, not a single nation or non-state actor has stepped up and offered to take the same amount of risk as the U.S. in enforcing the international law on chemical weapons.
That is the red line that the world, as a collective group of nations, has decided to go beyond; Boldly, selfishly, and with sniveling cowardice - with the exception of President Obama.
No matter what you say about Obama, the one thing you cannot honestly state is that - especially in this case - he has abandoned America's moral and ethical responsibilities to agreements this nation has previously made to its citizens, or to the world at large.
As a staff, we still vehemently oppose unilateral U.S. action in Syria. We do not think any plan that will pass Congress will achieve the goal of penalizing Syria's Assad effectively for breaking international law.
As a matter of fact and principle, however, President Obama is completely and unequivocally correct in dragging Americans to accept the reality of the red line of international law.
If a significant majority of nations around the world are NOT willing to take a significant part in enforcing what they claim to be a key international law, then that international law simply does not have any validity.
That is the real red line every nation is crossing right now, including the United States.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
No Time For Childish Ways
While there may have been more napping by our staff members over the Labor Day weekend than most adults normally do, we certainly were awake on Saturday afternoon. That's when President Obama, in what may be a precedent-setting action, announced he was passing the decision to Congress on whether the U.S. should take military action in Syria.
That Congress didn't immediately rush back to Washington to debate the issue, didn't surprise us at all - especially given that President Obama stated any punitive action against Syria's current government wasn't time sensitive.
Still, Senate committees will already be meeting this week on the issue, some possibly as early as today, while the Republican-led House won't begin debating any potential military action until next Monday at the earliest. That Speaker Boehner can't even face the difficult decision to act like an adult and bring the House back into session early doesn't bode well for any of the difficult decisions facing Congress this month.
That President Obama did act as the Constitution declares Presidents should - and exactly in line with his past actions and statements, including his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech - didn't entirely surprise most of our staff.
It did surprise many, as Wonkblog's Neil Irwin pointed out over the weekend.
President Obama has never favored going to war as a first option. As we noted as recently as last Thursday and as far back as two-and-a-half years ago, President Obama has a long track record of trying to pull America back from its role as supercop to the world. It's clear that not all of his advisors feel the same as he does.
As MSNBC's Chuck Todd confirmed Sunday, the President had been lobbied heavily by his National Security advisors last week that he should forgo getting Congressional approval on a military strike in Syria. At the last moment, however, Obama ignored his National Security advisors and appeared to take his own council, based in part on the the lively rejection vote in the British House of Commons last week, and also on the will of the American people.
Our primary advice to anyone trying to read the tea leaves on this is simple: Don't think Congress will break down along traditional partisan lines on the decision to use force in Syria.
As Ed O'Keefe laid out in the Washington Post on Sunday, there are at least five groups of opinions right now across both houses of Congress, and across party lines. The left is mostly split between those wanting to help the Syrian people and those wanting to avoid war, as Alex Seitz-Walz outlines at Greg Sargent's Plum Line blog. Some, like Rep. Pelosi are also somewhat bound by their positions to advocate in certain ways.
On the right, the divisions are not so easy to see. The neocon chickenhawks in Congress are furious that President Obama is making them take a stand on the record about their perpetual warmongering. The libertarians find themselves siding with the anti-war left. Potential 2016 GOP presidential contenders are worried in both directions, not wanting to seem weak on defense, but also not wanting to seem like another round of George W. Bush.
Meanwhile, as Rick Ungar of Forbes points out, certain corporate media interests are also spitting mad at President Obama for styming their plans to cash in on the latest made for TV war.
Simply put, no matter what Congress decides, the decision that President Obama has tasked them with isn't going to be easy.
Then again, we didn't send those men and women in Congress to Washington just to play footsie with the lobbyists in the kiddie pool.
That Congress didn't immediately rush back to Washington to debate the issue, didn't surprise us at all - especially given that President Obama stated any punitive action against Syria's current government wasn't time sensitive.
Still, Senate committees will already be meeting this week on the issue, some possibly as early as today, while the Republican-led House won't begin debating any potential military action until next Monday at the earliest. That Speaker Boehner can't even face the difficult decision to act like an adult and bring the House back into session early doesn't bode well for any of the difficult decisions facing Congress this month.
That President Obama did act as the Constitution declares Presidents should - and exactly in line with his past actions and statements, including his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech - didn't entirely surprise most of our staff.
It did surprise many, as Wonkblog's Neil Irwin pointed out over the weekend.
President Obama has never favored going to war as a first option. As we noted as recently as last Thursday and as far back as two-and-a-half years ago, President Obama has a long track record of trying to pull America back from its role as supercop to the world. It's clear that not all of his advisors feel the same as he does.
As MSNBC's Chuck Todd confirmed Sunday, the President had been lobbied heavily by his National Security advisors last week that he should forgo getting Congressional approval on a military strike in Syria. At the last moment, however, Obama ignored his National Security advisors and appeared to take his own council, based in part on the the lively rejection vote in the British House of Commons last week, and also on the will of the American people.
Our primary advice to anyone trying to read the tea leaves on this is simple: Don't think Congress will break down along traditional partisan lines on the decision to use force in Syria.
As Ed O'Keefe laid out in the Washington Post on Sunday, there are at least five groups of opinions right now across both houses of Congress, and across party lines. The left is mostly split between those wanting to help the Syrian people and those wanting to avoid war, as Alex Seitz-Walz outlines at Greg Sargent's Plum Line blog. Some, like Rep. Pelosi are also somewhat bound by their positions to advocate in certain ways.
On the right, the divisions are not so easy to see. The neocon chickenhawks in Congress are furious that President Obama is making them take a stand on the record about their perpetual warmongering. The libertarians find themselves siding with the anti-war left. Potential 2016 GOP presidential contenders are worried in both directions, not wanting to seem weak on defense, but also not wanting to seem like another round of George W. Bush.
Meanwhile, as Rick Ungar of Forbes points out, certain corporate media interests are also spitting mad at President Obama for styming their plans to cash in on the latest made for TV war.
Simply put, no matter what Congress decides, the decision that President Obama has tasked them with isn't going to be easy.
Then again, we didn't send those men and women in Congress to Washington just to play footsie with the lobbyists in the kiddie pool.
Monday, March 21, 2011
This Is Not A New War - Or A New Perspective
For all the howling from the left, and the unhidden gleeful mischaracterizations on the right, the actions that President Obama directed the U.S. military to take over the weekend regarding Libya, were something that U.S. presidents, from BOTH parties, have missed the opportunity to do for many, many years.
We're not saying President Obama should put together another "Why We Fight" film series like those that were used to ramp up public support of World War II. However, we think Americans on both sides need to step back, look, and listen to the facts regarding the United States involvement in Libya, before they start hollering.
Of course, this is America, so our plea for getting the facts first has already fallen on deaf years.
From the right, there are already folks jumping up and down, trying to blast their propaganda about President Obama's motives in a vain attempt to paint him with the same brush as his predecessor. Their desperate attempts to twist the facts in order to defend George W. Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq are sadly obvious to anyone with basic brain function. There are no U.S. military troops on the ground in Libya, nor are there plans for American troops to take that role, but the right-wing media echo chambers will be in full cry this entire week about how this is "Obama's New War". That's in spite of the reality that this is a U.N. effort, led by someone other than the U.S.
Sadly, the situation on the left is no better.
On the far left, they're listening to the histrionics of the right, and beginning some of their own. The militant anti-war crowd is furious at Obama - as they would be at anyone who used military force for anything more authoritative than tossing teddy bears and tulips. What they really fear is American military involvement in yet another war, especially after the disastrous misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove got us into. We understand their concerns and fears - but Libya is not Iraq, now matter how much their political polar opposites wish it were.
The simple truth is one that neither side seems willing to hear.
America is providing missile support, and a couple of Stealth bombers, as well as intelligence, and other various types of support to the French, British, and Spanish, who have taken the lead roles in enforcing the U.N. no-fly zone over Libya. For those who spent much of the early 2000s dismissing the French as effete sissies, they should be happy to know that the French are the ones now doing most of the bombing and heavy lifting in Libya. This is primarily because Americans currently will not tolerate our country's participation in helping Libya's "quest for democracy", thanks to the degree that our nation is still involved in Afghanistan and Iraq.
For those on both sides of the aisle who have for years - for their own reasons - criticized America's role as World Cop, they should understand that the need for such a position will never disappear, even if America no longer holds that title. Throughout history, the British, French, the Holy Roman Empire (basically Germans), the Spanish, the Romans, the Greeks, and the Egyptians have all played the role of worldwide enforcer.
In order for America to step back from that role, someone else must be allowed to step forward. If we don't want to forever be locked into the role of supercop, it is in our own best interest to support other countries that do take the lead in actions like stopping a crazed dictator from committing genocide on his own people.
Because America has made commitments to stop the kind of violence now occurring in Libya, we agree that America must help in some way, to stop Gaddafi's destructive behavior.
The role that President Obama and his advisors like Sec. Clinton have chosen for us to play this time in Libya achieves that goal, without getting America involved in yet another all-out war. Obama's actions are exactly the right role for the U.S. at this time - a fact that won't make either fanatical conservatives or liberals very happy.
We're not saying President Obama should put together another "Why We Fight" film series like those that were used to ramp up public support of World War II. However, we think Americans on both sides need to step back, look, and listen to the facts regarding the United States involvement in Libya, before they start hollering.
Of course, this is America, so our plea for getting the facts first has already fallen on deaf years.
From the right, there are already folks jumping up and down, trying to blast their propaganda about President Obama's motives in a vain attempt to paint him with the same brush as his predecessor. Their desperate attempts to twist the facts in order to defend George W. Bush's unnecessary invasion of Iraq are sadly obvious to anyone with basic brain function. There are no U.S. military troops on the ground in Libya, nor are there plans for American troops to take that role, but the right-wing media echo chambers will be in full cry this entire week about how this is "Obama's New War". That's in spite of the reality that this is a U.N. effort, led by someone other than the U.S.
Sadly, the situation on the left is no better.
On the far left, they're listening to the histrionics of the right, and beginning some of their own. The militant anti-war crowd is furious at Obama - as they would be at anyone who used military force for anything more authoritative than tossing teddy bears and tulips. What they really fear is American military involvement in yet another war, especially after the disastrous misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rove got us into. We understand their concerns and fears - but Libya is not Iraq, now matter how much their political polar opposites wish it were.
The simple truth is one that neither side seems willing to hear.
America is providing missile support, and a couple of Stealth bombers, as well as intelligence, and other various types of support to the French, British, and Spanish, who have taken the lead roles in enforcing the U.N. no-fly zone over Libya. For those who spent much of the early 2000s dismissing the French as effete sissies, they should be happy to know that the French are the ones now doing most of the bombing and heavy lifting in Libya. This is primarily because Americans currently will not tolerate our country's participation in helping Libya's "quest for democracy", thanks to the degree that our nation is still involved in Afghanistan and Iraq.
For those on both sides of the aisle who have for years - for their own reasons - criticized America's role as World Cop, they should understand that the need for such a position will never disappear, even if America no longer holds that title. Throughout history, the British, French, the Holy Roman Empire (basically Germans), the Spanish, the Romans, the Greeks, and the Egyptians have all played the role of worldwide enforcer.
In order for America to step back from that role, someone else must be allowed to step forward. If we don't want to forever be locked into the role of supercop, it is in our own best interest to support other countries that do take the lead in actions like stopping a crazed dictator from committing genocide on his own people.
Because America has made commitments to stop the kind of violence now occurring in Libya, we agree that America must help in some way, to stop Gaddafi's destructive behavior.
The role that President Obama and his advisors like Sec. Clinton have chosen for us to play this time in Libya achieves that goal, without getting America involved in yet another all-out war. Obama's actions are exactly the right role for the U.S. at this time - a fact that won't make either fanatical conservatives or liberals very happy.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Accident Or Opportunity?
Experiments can bring about the most amazing results, especially when you're a kid - or at least, they did when our staff members were kids.
Even considering the scientific studies on kids over the past few decades - like the recent findings tying brain damage in adults to injuries suffered from playing football as a kid or teenager - many American parents today often seem a bit overprotective to us. As one of our staff members has a highly intelligent and somewhat precocious youngster running around the office, we regularly get to experience that mix of instant terror and instant thrill that parents enjoy, that otherwise is reserved for experiences like roller coasters.
The American - and international - media got to experience a similar feeling on Monday, thanks in part to Secretary of State John Kerry, in what some members of the media have termed an accidental solution to the ongoing debate over Syria.
In a nutshell, Secretary Kerry was at a news conference in London on Monday when he was asked what, if anything, Syria's President Assad could do to avoid military action. Kerry, in what some reporters initially called a gaffe, said that if Syria's Assad were to surrender his stockpile of chemical weapons to an international commission, within a week, Assad and Syria could almost certainly avoid U.S. military action.
In less time than it takes a resourceful child to take an accident-prone death-trap of an idea and turn it into a fantastic opportunity, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov offered a plan to do almost exactly what Secretary Kerry had suggested - namely for Russia to head up an international group to take control of Syria's chemical weapons.
At nearly light-speed, politically, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem - who was already meeting with Russia's Lavrov - released a statement quickly welcoming the idea of putting Syria's chemical weapons under international control. Shortly thereafter, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon took things one step further, proposing that the U.N. Security Council not only immediately back the handover of the weapons, but also help to destroy them as fast as safely possible.
And just like that, in one afternoon, America and much of the world may have been backed down from a potentially disastrous military engagement by the United States in Syria - and the U.S. didn't even have to play supercop to get the desired results.
Admittedly, we're less sure that this was a happy accident than a carefully planned set of actions arranged by Kerry and his counterparts, to save face for all nations involved. Still, if this plan moves forward, we believe most of the world will be happy about the results - results we're sure America and the world will hear more about Tuesday night, when President Obama speaks in prime time.
One group that may not be so happy are some of our colleagues in the U.S. political media, who've been insisting that a "no" vote by Congress on military action - delayed by Monday's diplomatic whirlwind - would be the apocalyptic end to President Obama's second term.
As both Greg Sargent and Jonathan Bernstein noted on Monday, unless America ends up getting bogged down in Syria's civil war, there's no way members of Congress - especially Republicans in Congress - are going to be any more or less likely to handle the debt ceiling and budget issues like adults, no matter what happens.
Which, for America at least, means the policy roller coaster experiment of September 2013 is only beginning. Grab your helmet and don't tell your parents.
Even considering the scientific studies on kids over the past few decades - like the recent findings tying brain damage in adults to injuries suffered from playing football as a kid or teenager - many American parents today often seem a bit overprotective to us. As one of our staff members has a highly intelligent and somewhat precocious youngster running around the office, we regularly get to experience that mix of instant terror and instant thrill that parents enjoy, that otherwise is reserved for experiences like roller coasters.
The American - and international - media got to experience a similar feeling on Monday, thanks in part to Secretary of State John Kerry, in what some members of the media have termed an accidental solution to the ongoing debate over Syria.
In a nutshell, Secretary Kerry was at a news conference in London on Monday when he was asked what, if anything, Syria's President Assad could do to avoid military action. Kerry, in what some reporters initially called a gaffe, said that if Syria's Assad were to surrender his stockpile of chemical weapons to an international commission, within a week, Assad and Syria could almost certainly avoid U.S. military action.
In less time than it takes a resourceful child to take an accident-prone death-trap of an idea and turn it into a fantastic opportunity, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov offered a plan to do almost exactly what Secretary Kerry had suggested - namely for Russia to head up an international group to take control of Syria's chemical weapons.
At nearly light-speed, politically, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem - who was already meeting with Russia's Lavrov - released a statement quickly welcoming the idea of putting Syria's chemical weapons under international control. Shortly thereafter, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon took things one step further, proposing that the U.N. Security Council not only immediately back the handover of the weapons, but also help to destroy them as fast as safely possible.
And just like that, in one afternoon, America and much of the world may have been backed down from a potentially disastrous military engagement by the United States in Syria - and the U.S. didn't even have to play supercop to get the desired results.
Admittedly, we're less sure that this was a happy accident than a carefully planned set of actions arranged by Kerry and his counterparts, to save face for all nations involved. Still, if this plan moves forward, we believe most of the world will be happy about the results - results we're sure America and the world will hear more about Tuesday night, when President Obama speaks in prime time.
One group that may not be so happy are some of our colleagues in the U.S. political media, who've been insisting that a "no" vote by Congress on military action - delayed by Monday's diplomatic whirlwind - would be the apocalyptic end to President Obama's second term.
As both Greg Sargent and Jonathan Bernstein noted on Monday, unless America ends up getting bogged down in Syria's civil war, there's no way members of Congress - especially Republicans in Congress - are going to be any more or less likely to handle the debt ceiling and budget issues like adults, no matter what happens.
Which, for America at least, means the policy roller coaster experiment of September 2013 is only beginning. Grab your helmet and don't tell your parents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)