Obama: Decision on Syrian Intervention Could Come Soon

10.40K

Max Read

08/23/13 07:15AM

Filed to: syria

President Obama told CNN's Chris Cuomo that Wednesday's alleged chemical attack on Syrian civilians was "clearly a big event of grave concern" and agreed that the U.S. faces "an abbreviated timeline" in crafting a response.

Appearing on New Day, the president said that "core national interests" of the U.S. are at stake, and his administration is pushing the U.N. for "better action." But he refused to commit to any particular response, saying only that "we have to think through strategically what's going to be in our long term national interests." In other words: Maybe we will! Maybe we won't! (France and Turkey have both called for intervention, pending confirmation of the chemical attack.)

But at least the president acknowledged that there are major legal constraints on action—even if the Syrian government has crossed the "red line" of chemical weapons, which prompted an inflow of weapons from the U.S. in June:

"If the U.S. goes in and attacks another country without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it," Obama told Cuomo.
"Do we have the coalition to make it work?" he asked. "You know, those are considerations that we have to take into account."
The costs of military action "have to take those into account as we try to work within an international framework to do everything we can to see Assad ousted," Obama concluded.

The following replies are approved. To see additional replies that are pending approval, click Show Pending. Warning: These may contain graphic material.

7

PoopiesAF Max Read 08/23/13 08:15AM

We're all getting played. This is all about the military industrial complex and getting LNG from Qatar to Europe. You really think that Syria, which has it's military's every move scrutinized by spy satellites, is going to chemical attack it's near suburbs, after the tide has turned has begun winning the war? C'mon. This is the real reason we're going to war:

hatbob PoopiesAF 08/23/13 08:18AM

Nope.

1

ThisMachineKillsNeoliberals PoopiesAF 08/23/13 08:31AM

I remain skeptical on all fronts, but certainly the segment I saw on NBC had all the hallmarks of a propaganda ruse. It was all dead children and no context and "here's how the US can intervene."

It certainly defies logic that he would use chemical weapons WHILE THE INSPECTORS WERE THERE, but if it is all a ruse, then why not grant full access?

4

PoopiesAF ThisMachineKillsNeoliberals 08/23/13 08:59AM

But yet you'll never see the dead children we've killed paraded on the NBC nightly news. Because that shit never happens. And if it does, it's classified for national security reasons.

1

UhhWut PoopiesAF 08/23/13 09:24AM

There are reports that the chemical attacks were actually carried out by rebels, not Assad. To an extent it makes sense. Assad knows if he does this there is a very good chance the West gets involved. Not to mention an inspection team from the UN was allowed into the country just a week or two ago to inspect prior allegations of a chemical attack.

Despite all this, the talking heads just default to Assad. In no way am I defending Assad, it's just that this whole situation is a cluster-fuck. Never mind that for the past 6 months all of my military friends have repeatedly stated that we will have boots on the ground in Syria by years end. Anecdotal, but it seems those on the inside knew this was the next stop.

29

Garbage_Bear Max Read 08/23/13 08:17AM

Alright, the western media has consistently misrepresented what's going in Syria, so I'm going to break this down very simply:

Bashar Al-Assad is a secular Alawite dictator. He did not tolerate religious extremism in Syria and cracked down hard on any group that would try to begin religious operations in Syria.

Therefore, the opposition in this case, is actually made up of a lot of factions, the most dominant of which are extremist Sunni groups who are seeking to turn Syria into either a religious state or, at the very least, as a state-sponsor of terrorism (ie providing land and money to groups like Al-Qaeda, a Sunni terrorist group).

Hezbollah (a Shiite militant group based out of Lebanon and funded by Iran, a majority Shiite state) is operating in defense of Bashar Al-Assad for two reasons:

1) They get their weapons from Russia and Iran through Syria.

2) They are trying to prevent Syria from becoming a Sunni extremist state as it will destabilize the region.

Israel is carrying out covert operations in Syria to try and shift the balance of power in the region. Israel believes that by converting Syria from a somewhat hostile (to Israel) dictatorship to a Sunni state, then not only will they cripple Hezbollah, who have been a pain in Israel's side since day one, but they may, potentially, have a friend on one of their borders.

Saudi Arabia (a Sunni state) is throwing billions of dollars in the Egyptian conflict in support of the military and is also financially supporting the opposition in Syria in order to generate another ally and also to cripple Hezbollah and quarantine Iran (the only majority Shiite state in the Middle East).

As to the chemical weapons use, the only logical conclusion is that it was the opposition. The UN and Assad's government spent months negotiating the logistics of sending a UN team to investigate three previous uses of chemical weapons in Syria. The team arrived on Sunday and on Wednesday the latest attack happened. The timing is highly suspect. Why would Bashar Al-Assad use chemical weapons days after a UN inspection team arrives?

The reason states like Turkey are calling for immediate intervention is because Turkey is also a Sunni state and is also supporting the opposition.

I belive the U.S. knows this, which is why Obama is unsure about what to do. Also, it is important to know that Bashar Al-Assad's regime was actually a fairly close ally of the United States prior to the civil war. Russia, early on, did call the U.S. out on this fact.

Given all this, the lesser of the two evils here is to maintain the status quo. Bashar's regime is a much better alternative to what would come in place of it. Should Bashar fall, Syria would undoubtedly become an Al-Qaeda training ground that would lead to proxy wars all over the region, especially in Lebanon.

2

ThisMachineKillsNeoliberals Garbage_Bear 08/23/13 08:40AM

Ugh, I can't see how anyone is an Assad loyalist though. And if you thought he was brutal before, just imagine what kind of purges are going to take place if, after all this, he ends up back in power. You're going to need some sort of political settlement, but the SNC (which everyone seems to forget about) has put his departure as the precursor for talks, so as long as the war is going his direction or at a stalemate, he'll just hold on it seems.

1

Garbage_Bear ThisMachineKillsNeoliberals 08/23/13 08:46AM

There is no doubt that he is a brutal dictator. His father was even worse. I feel a sense of empathy for the Syrian people because they are stuck between two difficult, awful choices, neither of which would be great for them.

However, as sad as it is, from a regional stability and global security perspective, Bashar is the safer choice.

Also, your pic lol: shoutouts.

TenthPlanet Garbage_Bear 08/23/13 09:00AM

As to the chemical weapons use, the only logical conclusion is that it was the opposition.

Um, sorry, what? Could someone go into this a bit more, because I don't believe a word of it.

1

TrashBoat Garbage_Bear 08/23/13 09:13AM

This looks like a big ole bucket of WTF to me.

4

TheGawkerBlocker Max Read 08/23/13 08:10AM

Any intervention in Syria is stupid fucking idea and only surpassed by Obozo running his stupid fucking mouth about "red lines". He's only succeeded in further damaging American credibility (if such a thing can be imagined).

1

mark042656 TheGawkerBlocker 08/23/13 09:05AM

Well said.

3

ARP2 TheGawkerBlocker 08/23/13 10:04AM

So, you're saying that in the time before Obama, we were loved and everyone respected us, but once that Muslim came into power, our credibility was shot?

Name one war Obama has started. Name one civil liberties sucking program he created and didn't inherit. So, if you liked what Bush did, you must really like what Obama's doing because its more of the same. Face, Obama isn't that commie liberal that Fox tells you he is. He's pretty much continued most of Bush's programs intact.

2

Beer, Titties and Left Turns ARP2 08/23/13 10:20AM

Completely agree that from a foreign policy/national security standpoint, Obama is just Bush 2.0 and on domestic policy he is exceedingly moderate and no where's near what right-wing rhetoric describes him as.

But he's definitely sucked our civil liberties by continuing and expanding PRISM/NSA spying. It was a nascent program started by Bush during his last year in office, and Obama continued and grew the program.

TheGawkerBlocker ARP2 08/23/13 10:45AM

I'm not blaming Obama for events that happened before him, I'm decrying his own stupid acts. But like most Obama idiots, you meet every criticism of him with the usual bleating about "Bush!" or "Fox News!" (you forgot "Teabaggers!")

The simple fact is, everyone knows he was never and will never get involved Syria (a wise position) so standing in front of a podium in the White House making solemn statements about "red lines" just makes him look stupid and feckless.

5

FakePlasticTree Max Read 08/23/13 08:09AM

If I see any more footage of makeshift children's morgues on CNN, *I* will go over there and do something. It's beyond brutal to see this stuff; how can we let people live it?

12

Srynerson FakePlasticTree 08/23/13 08:24AM

“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”

—Gandalf, LotR:FotR

9

ThisMachineKillsNeoliberals FakePlasticTree 08/23/13 08:43AM

That's why you should be skeptical as to why you're seeing the footage you're seeing.

1

GreatRedBeard Srynerson 08/23/13 08:47AM

Fuck that noise. Assad has proven himself to be violent and sociopathic dicatator on the same level as any of the past century. We do judge these people, and agree that their brand of evil should not be allowed to exist. I realize that there are complications, that many of his enemies are religious extremists and terrorists, but if that kind of real politik consideration justifies our turning a blind eye to the mass slaughter of innocent civilians, than I don't want anything to do with western civilization anymore.

2

Srynerson GreatRedBeard 08/23/13 08:52AM

I'm curious as to what civilization you propose traveling to that would be MORE interventionist than "western civilization" has been for the past 20 years or so.