Obama says struggling over whether to intervene in Syria

[No Elephants]

By Roberta Rampton

WASHINGTON | Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:28pm EST

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama said he has been wrestling with the question whether a U.S. military intervention in Syria's 22-month-old civil war would help resolve the bloody conflict or make things worse.

In a pair of interviews, Obama responded to critics who say the United States has not been involved enough in Syria, where thousands of people have been killed and millions displaced according to U.N. officials. Transcripts of both interviews were released on Sunday.

The United States has called on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down, and has recognized an opposition coalition - but has stopped short of authorizing U.S. arming of rebels to overthrow Assad.

"In a situation like Syria, I have to ask: can we make a difference in that situation?" Obama said in an interview with The New Republic published on the magazine's website.

Obama said he has to weigh the benefit of a military intervention with the ability of the Pentagon to support troops still in Afghanistan, where the United States is withdrawing combat forces after a dozen years of war.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/28/us-obama-syria-idUSBRE90R00V20130128


I think this statement is a mistake, both domestically and abroad. I don't know what a President gains in either realm by broadcasting indecisiveness. As far as Syria, the rebels will scorn a statement like this. It will only infuriate them more over the inaction of the U.S. in Syria (in comparison with, say, Libya). And, if Assad prevails, this will do us no favors with him. Not that he loves us more than Russia to begin with. And Americans don't seem to want to know that their President is uncertain. Seems as though most would rather he or she be rash than indecisive. (Or Dummya would not have gotten as many votes as he did in 2004--however many he got legitimately)

Then again, maybe Americans have grown up some since then? Maybe they prefer a more reflective approach now?

I don't know.

I think saying something like "We assess the situation constantly" would have been a more politic and prudent way to go.

So many times, I have thought he could have given a more restrained, more politic response to questions from the press, whether it involved commenting on the arrest of Professor Gates before he had facts, or telling David Gregory that Conye is an "ass" or making definitive but contradictory statements about Benghazi three times. Nothing is wrong with giving answers that are not definitive when you first hear about a situation or while it is developing.

Then again, no one pays me to be a Democratic strategist. So, maybe I am not considering all the correct variables.

[Enthusiast]

1. If the President says he is wrestling with the question

that means we will enter the conflict in Syria in some capacity.

[No Elephants]

2. Still, I think some line about constantly assessing is preferable politically.

We are, of course, already involved in Syria. At the provision of arms to rebels level, at the very minimum. Maybe more.

But that is a different issue from what you say to the world until you are just about to go public with a concrete plan.

[razorman]

3. Syria has not attacked us. We have no more reason to intervene

there than we did in Iraq.

[No Elephants]

4. Hard to know. Can't believe you found this thread!

[Enthusiast]

5. A big PLUS ONE! nt