This Week...Politics DOES Matter!

If you love politics this week was made for you.

Congress returns from its recess to take up the debate over whether to authorize the president to use military force in Syria.  The stakes could not be higher.

A “Yes” vote in congress gives the president credibility.  It tells the international community that when the president draws a line in the sand the nation stands behind him.  It ties congress to whatever action the president might take as well as the unintended consequences that may result.    It also emboldens the president to press forward with his domestic policies as well; something most conservatives are loathing to do.  A “Yes’ vote will also incur the wrath of a vast majority of the voters, 80% of whom want no part of the Syrian conflict.  And after all getting re-elected is job one.

At risk for the president is his very presidency.  With a “Yes” vote he can move forward on a whole host of issues both foreign and domestic.  But a “No” vote cripples him.  It sends a signal both here and abroad that his word carries little meaning; that he does not have the support of the people.    He becomes the lamest of lame ducks even before his second term has a chance to gain traction.  The president understands this.  That is why today he will sit for interviews with all the major networks and tomorrow he will address the nation in a prime time address; making his case for military intervention.

And what consequences does this week have for us as a nation? 

This vote will be instrumental in defining the country’s future place in the world.  Do we want to continue to be the world’s policeman; investing our blood and treasure while the rest of the world sits idly by.  Or do we tell the world that it is time for them to fight their own battles.  That America will no longer intervene unless its national security is threatened.    

No matter the outcome, this vote will have far ranging consequences.

Oh, in case you forgot…while congress obsesses over this one very important issue…the US economy is weak and unemployment is high.  The number of Americans living in poverty grows every day.  Our education system is failing and our infrastructure is outdated and crumbling.  Our health care costs are the highest in the world and the debates over voting rights and gay rights and women’s rights tears at the very fabric of our democracy.  In two weeks the government will run out of money and our $16 trillion dollar debt casts a shadow over our economic future.

If you love politics this week was made for you.

For this week politics really DOES matter.         

    

There Is No Good Solution! But...

There is no good solution!

We have asked repeatedly for someone to lay out a plan for the aftermath of a US military strike in Syria.  After hours of reading opinion pieces and scouring through blogs we found nothing but the sound of crickets chirping on a summer night.  The silence is deafening.  So we thought that we’d take a crack at it.

The first thing you need to know is that there is no appetite for this strike domestically or internationally. 

A recent opinion poll shows that 80% of our war weary nation opposes the president’s plan to strike.  On Capitol Hill the vote is looking decidedly against the president as well.  True, the Foreign Intelligence Committee recently voted to authorize the president to act.  But that resolution included a long term commitment to turn the tide of the war against the regime by funding the supply of military arms and munitions to the rebel opposition.  That part of the resolution will face an uphill battle in the full Senate as is all but doomed in the House.  Internationally our strongest Ally, Great Britain, has declined to participate.  And at the G20 Summit taking place in St. Petersburg even our traditional supporters are demonstrating a lack of will to enforce international law.

The truth of the matter is that there are a number of members of congress who would ordinarily support the president’s plan to use military force; but they fear facing a primary challenge over their vote in the mid-terms.  So they spend their time counting votes, hoping that they can find a path to vote “No” while the resolution passes without their support.  Internationally there are a number of nations that would like nothing better than to have the US remove Assad and his chemical weapons from the equation.  But they fear retribution from radical factions if they support ANY further US intervention in the region.

Now that you have an idea of the climate in which the president is operating, let’s take a look at the alternatives.

If the president decides to attack what will be the result?  While the president has been contemplating his decision Assad has been moving his assets to the cover of residential neighborhoods, schools and mosques.  Any military attack is bound to kill or injure many civilians.  Assad will make certain that the dead will be displayed for the entire world to see as just another example of US aggression. In order to save face Assad will be forced to respond; perhaps ordering additional chemical weapon strikes against the rebels or attacking US allies and interests in the region.  The NSA has already intercepted transmissions from Iran ordering their terrorist cells in Iraq to attack the US embassy and other US installations if the US attacks Syria.  The call for retribution will spread to anti-American cells throughout the Middle East. The violence will escalate.  The president has promised that this strike will be limited and under no circumstances will he order American boots on the ground.  How can he sure?  Will he simply sit back while the violence of reprisal explodes throughout the region?  Domestically he will lose credibility with the electorate who made clear their opposition.  Dragging a war weary nation into another armed conflict will not be looked upon kindly in the upcoming mid-term elections; especially when 80% of the people disapprove.  His party and his supporters will take a big hit perhaps losing both the House and the Senate.

But what if the president decides to do nothing?  Certainly his credibility will take a hit both here and abroad. His political enemies will portray him as weak and “leading from behind.”   Whether they can translate his perceived weakness into victory during the mid-terms remains to be seen.  He will suffer on the international front as well.  Our foreign enemies will declare victory.  They will characterize him as weak and indecisive.  They will be emboldened to ramp up their attacks against US allies and their interests.  Iran will push forward with its nuclear weapons program and expand its terror operations throughout the region.  The United States is the only nation that CAN stand up to Assad’s aggression.  If the president backs down then America’s place in the world order will be sorely diminished.

So what is the answer?  The truth is that there are no good answers.

As “Weekly Standard” editor and columnist William Kristol recently wrote:  “There are only two solutions.  One is problematic.  The other is disastrous.”

The question is which is which.

There is no question that president Obama has made a mess of this entire Syrian situation.  Dithering and politicking over whether to take the nation to war is unacceptable.  And to those Obama supporters who would defend his indecisiveness by wailing about what a tough job this is; let us remind them that Barak Obama ran for this office…willingly…aggressively…twice.  If the president believes that attacking Syria is proper action to take then he needs to own it…and convince the American people and the international community that it is not the easy thing but it is the right thing to do.

A lot can happen between now and when congress is expected to vote next Wednesday.  Most of congress is still away on their five week recess.  (Hard to believe given the importance of the current circumstances.)  They will be returning to Washington were they will receive extensive briefings that may alter their thinking.  The all powerful American Israel Public Affairs lobbying group has yet to weigh in.   And the president is expected to address the nation next Tuesday night (Can’t compete with Sunday Night or Monday Night football.) where he will have the opportunity to convince the nation and the world that Assad must be punished for his use of chemical weapons.  He will need all of his impressive oratory skills for this one.

And there is some hope that some sort of compromise could be reached.  Perhaps the international community gives Assad 30, 60, 90 days to sign the chemical weapons ban and provide concrete evidence that he is taking steps to destroy his chemical weapons stockpiles.

There is no good solution. 

But rightly or wrongly it is the leader of the free world’s responsibility to find one.             

  

   

What's Next?

Listening to this debate over the use of military force in Syria is a real head scratcher.

First of all you have the president issuing a very emphatic warning to the Assad regime and then drawing the proverbial “red line in the sand.” 

Assad crosses the line.

Instead of owning his commitment to the use of military force the president abruptly takes a step back to seek the approval congress.

As the debate rages in congress the president, standing in the midst of world leaders at the G-20 summit seems to take even a further step back by saying that it’s not his red line that has been crossed but the international community’s…that his credibility is not at stake but the worlds.

One gets the sense that if we wait another week we might hear the president say: “red line…what red line.”

There is no question that the president was taken aback by the lack of support from the British Parliament.  But if he believes that we need to intervene in Syria then he has to own it.  This seeming indecision on his part has our allies wondering about America’s resolve.  Not good!

He needs to do more to convince the American people as well.  If he intends to take this country into another armed conflict then the American people deserve to hear him make his case in detail.  This is a big deal.  A brief statement to the press in the Rose Garden does not do it justice.

But while our concern over the president’s handling of this situation is troubling there is another aspect of the whole affair that is even more disconcerting.

What’s next? 

What happens after we blow up Assad’s command and control centers, his runways and his air support assets?  What happens in the aftermath?  For all the talk about committing the deed there seems to be little thought to what we do after the deed is done.

Presumably any ruler who is willing to kill over 100,000 of his own people and another 1,500 with chemical weapons is a pretty bad guy who is more than likely to respond in a not so friendly fashion.  Perhaps he will orchestrate a more expansive use of chemical weapons against his own people.  Perhaps he will expand the use to Israel, Turkey or one of our other allies in the region.

What are we prepared to do if Assad’s response is not surrender but to enact even more aggression?

There has been a lot of talk about America’s moral obligation as the world’s lone super power to intervene militarily in Syria.  But there has been little conversation if any about an equally troubling set of circumstances in the aftermath of that military intervention.

What’s next?

    

Maddow: "Elections Do Matter"

There is an old saying in politics: “elections matter.” 

It is normally uttered by politicians who are urging their supporters to get to the polls. 

The truth is elections DO matter.  And last night one of the smartest people we know, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow made the point as only she can.

As the debate over the use of military force in Syria rumbles through the halls of congress Maddow asks this question:  “Where do you think we would have been in the last five years if John McCain would have been elected in 2008 instead of Barak Obama?” 

Maddow then went on to list the Middle East countries where a President McCain, armed with the authority to order military force without congressional approval, advocated US military intervention.

Iran – Remember McCain singing “bomb, bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran to the old Beach boys tune?  McCain advocated taking out Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Georgia – McCain pushed for US military assistance to the former Soviet state as they waged their battle against Russia.  “We are all Georgians now” McCain said.

Libya – McCain lobbied for the use of military force to remove Gadhafi…even if it meant going in alone without UN support.

Iraq – McCain voted for the war in Iraq and was against the withdrawal of US military troops.  He favored leaving at least 20,000 US troops in Iraq indefinitely “to protect the victories we have won.”

Afghanistan – McCain voted for the war in Afghanistan, approved the 30,000 troop surge and opposes our withdrawal.

Syria – McCain supports the president’s request for the use of military force against the Assad regime.  He does NOT believe that the president’s air strikes go far enough and recommends using whatever means necessary to remove Assad from power.

We have often said that John McCain never met a war he didn’t want to fight.  Well, there’s the proof.

Maddow ended the segment with this:  “I wonder what Vice President Sarah Palin would be contributing to the debate?”

That was just mean!

   

Be Careful What You Wish For!

This is why people hate Washington politics.

Over the next several days a debate will rage in Washington over the president’s use of military force in Syria.  But unlike most foreign policy debates, this one is not between the Republican hawks on the right and the Democrat doves on the left.  Members of both parties have left their respective trenches to don the colors of the opposition.  No, this time the debate is between two branches of government…the executive branch and the legislative branch…and the substance of the debate is nothing but pure politics.

Over the past two years the president has made several bold statements about the Syrian conflict.  He has said that Assad must go.  He has said that the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime would be crossing a red line that would result in serious consequences.  He has said the United States would send small arms and munitions to the Syrian rebels. 

As we write this, Assad is still in power, he has used chemical weapons with impunity, and the Syrian rebels have yet to receive one bullet from the United States.  The president’s policy on Syria is a muddled mess…and he knows it.

So the president dispatches Secretary of State John Kerry to make the case for using military force against the Assad regime, placing emphasis on the president’s authority to do so without congressional approval.  Kerry, ever the good soldier, takes up the president’s banner and makes the case brilliantly. 

The president shows his appreciation for Kerry’s efforts by throwing him under the bus.  The president abruptly announces that he will seek congressional approval before ordering any attacks against the Syrian regime.

If there is one thing that the president has made clear in his foreign policy it is that he believes he has the right under the constitution to order military strikes without congressional approval.  Time and time again he has backed up that belief with action.

He ordered the raid that killed bin Laden without consulting congress.  He ordered the military to conduct bombing raids in Libya without consulting congress.  And he personally orders drone attacks against suspected terrorists in a whole host of countries where the US has yet to make any semblance of a declaration of war…without consulting congress.

So why the policy shift in Syria?  The answer is pure politics.

The president has made the political calculation that congressional approval will strengthen his case to move against Syria.  At risk is his presidency. 

If congress approves his request he has the political cover to act without risk of political retribution should things go badly.  But if congress denies his request then he is irreparably weakened both domestically and internationally.  Syria, Iran, Russia and others, will see this as a clear sign that the United States is no longer the force it once was…that they can move forward with their agendas without risk of intervention by the world’s lone super power. 

Domestically the president’s political enemies will be emboldened by this lack of fortitude.  For after all…they will have looked him in the eye and he will have blinked.  For all intents and purposes he will become a lame duck president before his second term has barely started.

The politics is equally risky for the legislative branch.

This Republican led congress has proven to be adept at leveling criticism yet impotent in terms of action.  They have made it clear that they believe this president has exceeded his constitutional authority in terms of the use of force.  Now they find themselves in the unenviable political position of having to put up or shut up.  The president has lobbed the ball into their court.  The question now is: “What do we do with it?”

If congress gives the president the authority to use military force in Syria then the outcome is as much on their hands as it is his.  But if they refuse to give their authorization, the mantle of “obstructionist” weighs even heavier on their shoulders.  And as the carnage in Syria continues to be displayed on the nightly news it is congress that will bear the brunt of the blame.

Keep in mind that all this political posturing is over the use of a limited military strike designed to “punish” the Assad regime for using chemical weapons.  There are no expectations on either side of the aisle that this military action will alter the course of the civil war in Syria. 

For it is not a plan to remove a ruthless dictator.  It is not a plan to stop the carnage that has already taken over 100,000 lives.  This is just politics for the sake of politics.

Both the executive and legislative branches of our government are playing politics with an international tragedy.  Their maneuverings are strictly for the purpose of achieving a political advantage.

Be careful what you wish for.

  

    

                 

    

The Brits Ain't Comin'

The British Parliament has voted to deny Prime Minister Cameron the authority to join President Obama in striking Syria.  If President Obama is going to launch an offensive against Assad he is on his own.  His staunchest ally has said “No thanks!”

There is an old saying in politics that presidents are always fighting the last war.  It is clearly evident that the ghosts of George W. Bush and Tony Blair are playing a major role in these deliberations.

Barak Obama ignored those apparitions as he drew his red line.  The British Parliament did not.     

The President Has A Dilemma!

The president has a dilemma.

What in the world is he going to do about Syria’s use of chemical weapons?

The president drew the proverbial “red line” in the sand and Assad stomped all over it.

In truth, the president made a terrible mistake with the whole “red line” threat.  Never utter a challenge unless you are prepared to back it up.

Now he has to do something or his “word” means nothing.

So what does he do?

He’d like to take out Syria’s stockpile of chemical weapons; said to be the largest in the world.  But to do so risks releasing the gas and killing thousands of innocent civilians.

He’d like to arm the rebels and let them do the heavy lifting for him.  But it is estimated that 60% of the rebel forces are either Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda splinter groups.  Sending weapons to our enemies is not a good move.  Been there…done that!

And although he said: “Assad must go!” He’s really not sure if a regime change is such a good idea.  If Assad DOES go, who steps in to the power vacuum?  Al Qaeda!  Iran!  Hezbollah!

He also has to decide if he wants to go this alone.  His closest ally, Britain, wants more time to hash it out with parliament.  France is tepid at best.  Jordan has refused to allow him to send attacks across their airspace.  Russia and China have blocked any attempts at a UN coalition.  Any attack he authorizes will be met with retaliation against Israel.  When that happens everything goes to hell.

The home front isn’t much better.  McCain naturally wants him to turn Syria into a wasteland while most of his opponents want him to discuss the matter with congress before doing anything.  And Donald Rumsfeld thinks attacking Syria is a bad idea…as if anybody cares what Donald Rumsfeld thinks.  

As for the American people…they want a job.  They couldn’t care less about what goes on in Syria.  The thought of another Middle East war leaves them cold.  And the thought of spending millions if not billions of borrowed dollars on another war when we can’t afford to take care of our own; makes them very, very angry.

The president tried to explain himself last night in a national interview.  He sounded an awful lot like Bush 43 making the case to go into Iraq.  Not a good start.  And like Bush, President Obama seemed to be saying: “killing over 100,000 of your own people with conventional weapons is ok.  But killing a few hundred with chemical weapons is a no, no.

The truth is there are no good options.  None!  But the president feels that he has to inflict some form of punishment on Assad for crossing his foolishly drawn red line.

The president has a dilemma!