The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (10 comments)

  1. Folks should realize that it’s not Obama alone who is making strategy – both military options and political options.

    This is more like the Kosovo dilemma than the Iraq/Afghanistan issue especially since we’ve seen
    how decapitating a nations current leadership can and will
    lead to a civil war – of which there are no easy candidates to take over – e.g. Libya/Egypt.

    There is no question that Obama and team are looking at this more like Clinton looked at Serbia than Bush looked at Iraq – and not without some justification.

    We know all too well how easy it is to get drawn into a boots-on-the-ground conflict and all too well how hard it is to influence without boots-on-the-ground.

    we do have strategic interests in the Middle East and the one thing about the POTUS team strategy is to demonstrate to everyone that even Congress is not going to arrive at an easy consensus on the way forward.

    Call Obama timid – and perhaps true but also realize that those presumed to have more fire in their belly seem not of one mind either.

  2. First let me say I totally dislike o’bama and know he’s a LYING FRAUD.
    Still, just maybe he doesn’t want strike Syria (the desire of the war monger puppeteers who are usually pulling his puppet strings) and this is a way for him to say, “I’m trying and want to do your agenda (to the puppeteers) but congress and 90% of the people are against it.” Unfortunately, he may then say, “we NEED a greater excuse to do it,” which might entail a bad False Flag event which he hopes to capitalize on so he can institute Martial Law, leading to the UN taking over in their version of a NWO instead of the war mongers continuing their heading toward their corporatist version of a NWO.

    1. there’s an equal danger that Obama could be goaded into “I’ll show them” response that will totally please the neocons and interventionists…..

      those folks have a strategy also…………

  3. I suspect it is because even Democrats are seeing the danger of a president who takes action unilaterally, especially on something as important as war. I suspect he realizes that if he goes off to war without Congressional input, that it could endanger his future as despot-in-chief. He has not quite consolidated his power yet.

  4. Despite the President’s limited intentions, this has the potential to be a much more significant conflict than the Libya campaign, because Iran or Hezbollah could respond as they have threatened, leading to a much wider war. So it’s absolutely appropriate to debate this in Congress beforehand. I’d vote yes.

  5. I love it. It is a repeat of the events of twelve years ago, right down to the Secy of State pleading the case. The media has had to recycle stories changing there tone to sway public opinion. You cant make this stuff up.

  6. Here’s another reason: Obama simply cannot stomach looking less democratic than Britain, which he despises. Once Cameron deferred to his legislature, Obama felt pressure to do the same.

    1. What would Bush/Cheney have done?

      1. Cheney would have led bush to do the same because Cheney is owned by the Rulers who want to take control of the whole world to complete their fascist New World Order.

  7. Obama has passed this to Congress to dig himself out of a box. if they agree and it fails, they are in it together; if they vote “no” he can blame them for not having courage and moral rectitude to protect the children. he thinks it is a “win” for him either way — but in reality his credibility after all the fumbling and bumbling of the last several years, including the Kerry/Dempsey appearance yesterday is toast. i don’t know if a “shot across the bow” does much for U S credibility, frankly. i worry this will blow up in the administration’s face, and they do not have the skill set to handle, clearly.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:


Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Refine Content