Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

cali

(114,904 posts)
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 10:43 AM Sep 2014

The Reluctant Loner President Builds a Coalition and Goes After Terrorists Across Syria

<snip>

Four quick, early morning observations (to be followed by more, I hope):

1. The Arabs of the Gulf (Arabian Gulf, Persian Gulf, take your pick) have overcome their fear of Obama's irresolution and joined him publicly in this campaign. This has happened for two reasons: One, Obama made a convincing case to U.S. allies that he's in the ISIS fight for the long-term. The Gulf Arabs are exposed, almost existentially so, to the ISIS threat, so they obviously feel that the U.S. is not pivoting away from them (to borrow a term). The second reason is embedded in the first reason: The president was pushing on an open door. Precisely because the Arab states fear ISIS so much, they needed to take a bit of a leap of faith with a man they haven't trusted since the "red line" crisis of last year. That said, Obama's critics will attempt to downplay his achievement in building this coalition. They shouldn't. Getting this set of countries to act in their own defense has never been an easy task.

2. It is true that there exists no strategy for victory, and no definition of victory. The advantage of launching strikes against ISIS positions early in this fight is that its commanders now have to spend extraordinary amounts of time, energy, and resources merely digging in, and protecting their human and materiel assets, rather than pushing on toward Baghdad, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. A terrorist preoccupied with his own survival has less bandwidth to threaten yours. But these strikes will not bring about the end of ISIS. Like other terror groups, it can "win" this current round of fighting by surviving, and maximizing civilian casualties on its own side.

3. This struggle is now owned by the United States. President Obama has spread around the risk, but make no mistake, this is an American fight. If President Obama wasn't convinced that the U.S. is—and should be—the world's sole remaining superpower, he is now. Our reluctant president came to the conclusion that it would be insane for the civilized world to allow the barbarians of ISIS to overspread the Middle East. He looked around, and realized that the only country that could lead the anti-ISIS campaign was his. He's right, alas, and this leadership has a cost. ISIS was mainly interested, for the moment, at least, in securing its own borders, and building the infrastructure of a state. I have a feeling its long-term planners woke up this morning newly interested in finding ways to hurt Americans.

4. This American-led campaign isn't unalloyed good news for Bashar al-Assad. ISIS has been, in practical terms, his best friend this past year. The threat of ISIS caused numerous anti-Assad parties to think twice about calling for his removal. And ISIS did a great job on Assad's behalf of eliminating the more moderate Syrian opposition. Nevertheless, American bombs are falling in Syria, and they're not falling on Assad. Very few people a year ago could have predicted this.

<snip>

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/09/the-reluctant-loner-president-Obama-builds-a-coalition-and-goes-after-terrorists-across-syria/380633/

15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

blm

(113,063 posts)
1. Paying close attention to the QUIET diplomatic efforts of the last 20 months
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 10:51 AM
Sep 2014

Last edited Tue Sep 23, 2014, 11:24 AM - Edit history (1)

tells me that this State Dept and WH are doing the smartest thing they could have done - transitioning the region to start relying on THEMSELVES, and their own military forces, to resolve conflicts.

That has never been done in the past or even attempted.

I am surprised so few are showing appreciation for the historic nature of this transition effort, no matter where you stand on dove to hawk spectrum.

FSogol

(45,488 posts)
4. +1, completely agree. One other point that seems to be missed in the rush to blame Obama is
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 11:00 AM
Sep 2014

that; why would we publicize our strategy and or definition of goals to ISIL to see? Why give them intel or allow them to see the goals?
Do people really expect to read the game plan on the front page of the Wash Post and the NY Times?

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
5. we've given them intel. we let them know we'd be bombing them in Syria
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 11:03 AM
Sep 2014

a goal is hardly a game plan. Yes, I think the people of a country have the right to a rough idea of what military action entails.

FSogol

(45,488 posts)
6. LOL
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 11:12 AM
Sep 2014


The goal is getting parts of the ME together to help reduce the threat of ISIL. Getting the Saudis and Iran talking is historic. For Obama, getting the Saudis to agree to anything is historic since they much prefer the Bushes of the world. Getting those countries to agree to an action along with Qatar and others is historic too. The region sees ISIL as a threat, hopefully in the future, the region can take care of their own threats without (much) US involvement.

The first round of bombing strikes are intended to hit weapon caches and the next round will target areas where ISIL tries to move weapons and equipment.

Seems childish to me to expect military plans to be outlined for everyone's approval.
 

cali

(114,904 posts)
7. bwahahahaha.
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 11:19 AM
Sep 2014

or whatever.

saying that goals should be presented and a rough idea of what a military campaign entails, is not asking for detailed plans.

 

LordGlenconner

(1,348 posts)
10. You want support from this OP?
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 11:32 AM
Sep 2014

About as likely as her posting something negative about Republicans.

 

cali

(114,904 posts)
12. you haven't been here all that long
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 11:37 AM
Sep 2014

I've posted many, many negative things about republicans.

and this is piece is not negative toward the president. I post what I believe are thoughtful or illuminating articles.



blm

(113,063 posts)
14. No - cali and I don't need that from each other.
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 11:58 AM
Sep 2014

We don't operate from fear or the need to berate.

pampango

(24,692 posts)
2. I'm not sure why the author calls Obama the "loner president". He has less of a "cowboy diplomat"
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 10:57 AM
Sep 2014

than his predecessor was. Obama has pushed multi-lateral, coordinated responses to international problems in most cases. I don't see him as a "loner president" except perhaps when it comes to domestic politics and the lack of any cooperation from republicans.

blm

(113,063 posts)
9. You apparently don't get the import of being seen as a regional Muslim effort being
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 11:30 AM
Sep 2014

backed by US air power against the region's most destructive enemy.

It is a much wiser move to bring in other 'western' forces to help the Muslim forces after the initial confrontations.

leftstreet

(36,108 posts)
11. So this is about image?
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 11:36 AM
Sep 2014

No chance then the US will be 'seen' as a rogue imperialist power committing war crimes against a sovereign nation?

blm

(113,063 posts)
13. You want Muslim nations to start dealing with their own crazies...or not?
Tue Sep 23, 2014, 11:56 AM
Sep 2014

Do you take turns going to other sites and complaining that Obama is a coward who doesn't 'want' a full-scale war, too?

Funny how that works these days, eh?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Reluctant Loner Presi...