web analytics
October 25, 2014 / 1 Heshvan, 5775
At a Glance
InDepth
Sponsored Post
Meir Panim with Soldiers 5774 Roundup: Year of Relief and Service for Israel’s Needy

Meir Panim implements programs that serve Israel’s neediest populations with respect and dignity. Meir Panim also coordinated care packages for families in the South during the Gaza War.



The Perils of Barack

We don’t know what their thinking is on the choice between evils: the evil of intervening or the evil of failing to after defining a red line.
train tracks

So here we are.  Americans elected Barack Obama, and now he appears to be within a breath of embroiling us in a military confrontation in Syria.  If the most recent polls are a good indication, Americans are strongly opposed to intervening in Syria.  Even if there is incontrovertible proof that Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on his own people on 21 August, 46 percent of poll respondents last week said they would still strongly oppose a U.S. intervention in Syria.

Bret Baier laid it out in his Fox News broadcast this evening:  the opposition to intervening in Syria is by far the highest amount of public opposition to any proposed intervention or other military operation in the last 30 years.  The numbers against Syria bear no resemblance to the numbers on anything Americans can remember, whether Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, the Balkans, Somalia, Haiti, Panama, or Grenada.  Americans aren’t sold on the necessity or wisdom of a military attack on Syria; in fact, opposition to it, in the absence of conclusive proof that Assad used WMD, is a whopping 60 percent.

The reasons for this are the same reasons that few can find a brief, cogent way to talk about the issue.  For the American people, I think – speaking as one of them – the biggest concern is a simple one: ain’t nobody tellin’ us nothin’.  What the heck would an intervention look like, and why exactly would we be doing it?  Fine, “WMD”; but what would we be doing about “WMD”?  Hunting it down?  Taking it out?  Just punishing Assad for using it?  If so, by doing what?  Attacking his airfields and warehouses?  Blowing up his warplanes?  Pumping a few Tomahawks into a presidential palace?

There are brief, cogent things to say about Syria, about the threat its civil war poses to stability, and about the security problem of chemical weapons use by Assad.  But no one in the Obama administration, from Obama himself down through his cabinet-level representatives to Jay Carney, is saying them.  We literally do not know the administration’s answer to the most basic question about this whole thing: what would we be conducting a military attack on Syria for?

There is a big difference between proposing to punish Assad, with no decisive end-state in view, and proposing to take action designed to shape or at least promote a particular end-state.  The different goals would entail different levels and types of military action.  Ideally, they would entail different packages of non-military action as well: principally diplomacy, to lay out, sell, and negotiate any end-state we had in mind.

In any case, military action will draw a big reaction from Assad, and a less predictable but potentially more dangerous reaction in various dimensions from Iran and Russia.  This will be true regardless of what our goal is, and what level and type of force we use.  Syria is not Libya, a point I have made on numerous occasions (e.g., here).  Iran and Russia are both too invested there, for immutable geostrategic reasons, to simply stand back and let the Western nations bomb their client until we feel satisfied.

Breaking the peace

So there are a handful of key ways in which to frame the Syria question.  One is the way I outlined yesterday: what is the extent to which the brittle peace we have today will be disrupted by great-power action and reaction in Syria?  Russia and Iran are warning us about that; do Western leaders see the dangers?  Are they thinking about them?  Can we detect any assumptions they have in mind, which might be guides to what they’re going to do?

Breaking promises

Another way to frame the Syria question is to view it in terms of threats, promises, and credibility.  Barry Rubin, inspecting the situation in those terms, asserts flatly that Obama has no intention of using military force in Syria.  Promises and credibility don’t mean enough to Obama – demonstrably, based on his record – and the American people are against attacking Syria, at a time when the hazards of doing so promise to be great.  No matter what it looks like through the lens of the “drive-by” media, the answer just can’t be that Obama is going to take this step into quicksand.  That means the U.S. is headed for a huge loss of credibility.

About the Author:


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

3 Responses to “The Perils of Barack”

  1. For Israel says:

    Umm, for a President who seems to be purposely destroying American, and who doesn’t seem to keen on Israel, what would be the “best” option. Strike Syria.

  2. For Israel says:

    Umm, for a President who seems to be purposely destroying American, and who doesn’t seem to keen on Israel, what would be the “best” option. Strike Syria.

  3. Thi is a reality show media, Obama, Cameron, Holande and Merkel get out from Syria, let the kill each other.

Comments are closed.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Current Top Story
Do you know where your vegetables grow?
Not So Kosher Shemittah L’Mehadrin
Latest Indepth Stories
Eller-102414-Cart

I had to hire a babysitter so that I could go shopping or have someone come with me to push Caroline in her wheelchair.

Bills to restore the balance of power in Israel will be fought by the not-so-judicial left.

Widespread agreement in Israel opposing Palestinian diplomatic warfare, commonly called “lawfare.”

Chaye Zisel Braun

Arab terrorism against Jews and the State of Israel is not something we should be “calm” about.

Peace Now Chairman Yariv Oppenheimer

The Israeli left, led by tenured academics, endorses pretty much anything harmful to its own country

We were devastated: The exploitation of our father’s murder as a vehicle for political commentary.

Judea and Samaria (Yesha) have been governed by the IDF and not officially under Israeli sovereignty

While not all criticism of Israel stemmed from anti-Semitism, Podhoretz contends the level of animosity towards Israel rises exponentially the farther left one moved along the spectrum.

n past decades, Oman has struck a diplomatic balance between Saudi Arabia, the West, and Iran.

The Torah scroll which my family donated will ride aboard the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier

The Jewish Press endorses the reelection of Gov. Andrew Cuomo. His record as governor these past four years offers eloquent testimony to the experience and vision he has to lead the Empire State for the next four years.

I think Seth Lipsky is amazing, but it just drives home the point that newspapers have a lot of moving parts.

Myth #1: It is easy to be a B’nai Noach. It is extraordinarily hard to be a B’nai Noach.

The question of anti-Semitism in Europe today is truly tied to the issue of immigration.

Polls indicate that the Palestinians are much more against a two state solution than the Israelis.

More Articles from J. E. Dyer
Steven Joel Sotloff as a hostage of ISIS, before his beheading.

In his travels as a journalist in the Islamic world, Sotloff never referred to his Jewishness.

ZIM Piraeus in happier days. (Image: ShipSpotting.com user b47b56)

ZIM Piraeus isn’t Israeli-owned or flagged, incidentally, it is Greek operated.

Obama is transparent, if you read his oracular signs with the right key.

ISIS has no intention of “marching on” Baghdad. The Sunni affiliates of ISIS are going to disrupt life there.

Oslo’s moment of unchallenged American supremacy and the illusion of unforced global stasis, passed.

Could the Obamas be any more “let ‘em eat cake”?

The Obama administration wants to take over the short-term financial services industry.

The topics are “The Reagan Strategy,” and the “Iran Time Bomb.”

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/analysis/j-e-dyer/the-perils-of-barack/2013/08/28/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: