Maslow's Peak: Reports From the Left
  • home
  • blog
  • about/contact

Obama executes a turn.

8/31/2013

16 Comments

 
Picture
I had desperately hoped to see a sign from this President, as he weighed the question of whether or not to initiate strikes against Syria, that he is the exceptional leader I have consistently felt him to be.  As he spoke in the Rose Garden today, explaining the two elements of the way he feels we should move forward, I was amazed to observe that he has the ability to surpass even my very high expectations.  

His two-pronged approach to the issue, as described in his remarks today, are one, to communicate his resolve to apply harsh consequences to the Assad regime for the murder of over a thousand of its citizens with poison gas, consequences in the form of missile strikes; and two, to acquiesce to demands that he bring the US Congress into the decision-making process.  

You may not agree with the first part.  Obama's position is that actions taken by Assad in Damascus, using chemical weapons against Syria's own civilian population, including hundreds of children, constitute crimes against humanity so horrific and unique from other types or levels of warfare, that they cannot be ignored.  The President was clear he believes we have an imperative to respond to these actions, separate altogether from any consideration of intervention in Syria's civil war, and separate from the question of regime change.  

You may feel otherwise.  But his decision to withhold an executive order to strike unless and until he has the full support of Congress is beyond reproach.  For those of us who feel on the one hand both skeptical and disempowered by the prospect of another American president making a case for military action, but on the other hand cognizant that what happened in Damascus cannot be ignored, Obama has presented what is perhaps the only acceptable proposition:  if we're going to respond to this somehow, let's decide how to do it together. 

How else would you want a president to resolve a question like this, other than each of us meeting personally with him at the White House to explain exactly what we want to have done? 

Reports from behind the scenes at the White House tell us that over the last 24-48 hours the debate between the President's Cabinet members, national security team and other staff and advisers has been robust, and there was significant sentiment against seeking the support of Congress before taking action. I've read about similar processes occurring in this administration's Oval Office and Situation Room deliberations during the couple of days leading up to the decision to start air strikes over Libya, and before giving the "go" to authorize the operation to get bin Laden.  This President apparently demands a frank diversity of opinion, and afterwards may make a decision flouting the advice of even his closest advisers.  In this case it appears there was much agreement about the need to go forward with strikes against Syria, but a variety of points of view about how far to bring Congress into the process.  Obama went with the approach that relinquishes ultimate control of the final decision.  It should be noted that since Congress does not reconvene until September 9, and he is not asking them to return early to address this, he has chosen not to cheapen his argument for consequences for Assad by implying there is a crucial need to act immediately.  He has also clearly not agreed to seek the approval of Congress as a way to shrink from stating his OWN opinion - his point of view could not be clearer: we should launch missiles at military targets in Syria in order to enforce international norms against the use of chemical weapons.

Whatever you think of that, now your argument must go to Congress.  And make no mistake, members of Congress do read your letters and emails, and do track your phone calls.  Whether the legwork is done by staff, and commentary is sorted into piles of rough agreement, or your communication is discovered to be so compelling, articulate or pertinent that it lands on the Congressperson's desk, none of them are ignored (see my post "Yes, They Do Read Your Letters!" 11/19/11.)  Cynicism about whether they do that to inform campaign messaging or whether they actually care is understandable.  But the argument "they don't care what I have to say" is drastically undermined if you don't say anything.  Over the next ten days, you can spend many hours debating this on Facebook, at the dinner table, or in your own head, but remember that the "representative" part of representative democracy doesn't work without your direct participation.  So take ten minutes out of your facebook time between now and the 9th to contact your Senators, www.senate.gov, and another ten to weigh in with your Representative at www.house.gov. 

MSNBC correspondent Chuck Todd, coming on camera to comment after the President's statement, pointed out how extraordinary it is for Obama to make a decision to seek the approval of Congress before taking action.  Todd noted that for roughly 40 years, since Dick Cheney was pulling strings in the Ford administration, Presidents have continuously sought to concentrate ever more power in the Executive Branch.  The fact that Barack Obama just took a stand in another direction reminds me once again that we are watching a presidency with deep historical significance.

From today's remarks, "...but, having made my decision as Commander in Chief...I am also mindful that I am the President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy.  I've long believed that our power is rooted, not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

 - Julie Boler

16 Comments
DT
8/31/2013 07:58:29 am

Well said. I appreciate your position even if we're not 110% in agreement.

Reply
Shannon Hathaway
8/31/2013 08:26:55 am

I agree that calling for a vote in Congress is the right move. And I will write my Senators and Congress members to encourage them to exhaust every means to a peaceful resolution before launching a military strike that will result in more lives lost.

Reply
Julie
8/31/2013 09:54:16 am

Both of you know, I hope - how very much I respect you, and I wondered what you might think of the points I make here. It's nice seeing how carefully someone has read what you've written - I know how much you're against the strikes so I appreciate you hearing me about the Obama involving Congress.

If you feel like it I'd like hearing what you think about Obama's idea that we simply cannot allow this act to go without consequences. I'm really struggling with this, but I don't know how else to enforce what I agree with the President should be a red line.

Reply
Sarah Kincaid
8/31/2013 09:58:45 am

Very well written. You are right in urging that we contact our representatives. I am doubtful, however, that the vote will be anything other than purely partisan.

Reply
Julie
8/31/2013 10:26:17 am

I don't know, Sarah! I've seen some pretty interesting opinions among members of Congress so far - I don't think it's going to be Republican vs Democrat in this one.

Reply
bob allen link
8/31/2013 10:38:23 am

Great Post Julie, you covered a lot of ground and quite succinctly. kudos

Reply
J H Willis
8/31/2013 11:14:37 am

The salient info, a personal position statement and a plan for action in a few highly readable paragraphs. Well done.

Reply
Terry Smith
8/31/2013 01:03:44 pm

This is interesting to me because if you've been following the conservative narrative against Obama, it's that he somehow has flagrantly overrun the separation of powers by taking actions without congressional consultation or approval. I don't agree with that, but I keep hearing it. So with this decision to involve Congress -- tossing the Syria hot potato their way -- I wonder if now the conservatives will say, good show, Barack, huzza huzza. No, I don't think so either.

Reply
obvious
8/31/2013 01:17:40 pm

obviously, he decided to involve congress and not act tyrannically only once Britain backed out.

Reply
Terry Smith
8/31/2013 01:25:01 pm

It's obvious because it was exactly the right move. He was backed into a corner by his "line in the sand" blunder, and now the only way to save face (not just for him but for the nation at large) is to pass the buck to Congress. But you're right, the British example pointed the way.

Julie
9/1/2013 08:48:26 am

The negative commentary I've heard so far from a few Republicans is that by holding off for Congress to weigh in, the President has abdicated his responsibility and indicated to the world that the US has weak or disheveled leadership. Of course the opposite is true - it takes much more leadership to facilitate consensus then to enforce policy dictates. A couple of Congress members are putting a fair amount of energy into running this line of argument. I think folks that choose to spend much time blathering about that rather than buckling down with their cohorts to figure out which way Congress wants to go on this highly critical issue are going to find they have lost a lot of respect and trust among their constituents.

(James and Bob, thank you SO much for your compliments!!

Reply
J.Harris (The Lefty Loft)
9/2/2013 01:36:00 am

Regarding the negative commentary coming from the Right suggesting that the POTUS has "abdicated his responsibility," I would posit that those people don't know that the Legislative branch, and not the Executive branch, of our government is legally responsible for declarations of war. The War Powers Act, which, I think, has been abused, does provide the Executive branch with wiggle room (60 days worth), before having to go to the Legislative branch, but that's a different discussion for another day.

I am not convinced that military strikes are the best way to express our dismay, regarding the actions of Assad. Violence is rarely the best way to articulate our frustrations. If someone wants to lash out with military retaliation, then I would rather see that come from the Arab League. Let that group take on that responsibility. Their member nations are right there in the heart of the situation, and have more of a direct threat from Assad's use of chemical weapons than we do here in the United States. Sometimes folks have to fight their own battles, and not rely on one's big brother or sister to fight for them.

Finally, I think that it was both a brilliant and realistic political move for the POTUS to bring Congress into the fray. I agree with many that David Cameron's loss in Parliament had an effect on the POTUS' decision. But I would also like to think that he also wanted to seek a little revenge on all of the chicken hawks (and real hawks (vets like McCain)) out there trying to be quaterbacks from their usual peanut gallery. Let them take a hard vote on this, and allow the country to see who the real hawks are in this country (and who we should be leery of, when it comes to issues of military strikes and war). This will also provide an excellent opportunity to put on display the true fissure that has developed on the Right. That fissure needs more attention. And those of us on the Left, who are more interested in finding diplomatic solutions, instead of military solutions, will have a good opportunity to see who among the Left are more prone to shoot first, and seek diplomatic solutions later.

Reply
Julie
9/2/2013 02:11:50 am

Eloquent as always, Mr. Harris. If this can actually be made to come down to a vote, (I feel like they're going to find some way to slip out of it) it will be fascinating to see, as you say, how it breaks down.

I have so much respect for your aversion to the idea of this strike, and I'd like to know more about how you think we SHOULD respond to the chemical weapons use, or IF we should. If not, what would Assad have to do to make it impossible for us to ignore his actions, and if you do think we should respond, what can we do to - as you put it so well - express our dismay?

Reply
J.Harris (The Lefty Loft)
9/2/2013 04:24:20 am

Forgive me if it sounds childish or naive, but I would love to find out, after the fact, that our collective clandestine agencies managed to get into Syria and confiscate all of their chemical weapons. That way, we will have eliminated an immediate danger for the region. After that, I would like to think that a combination of severe sanctions, coupled with negotiations with Russia, the Arab League, the most secular of the rebels, and the remaining members of the Assad government, and that would be after having Assad arrested with the plan to try him at The Hague for war crimes. In that fantasy scenario (one with, I would hope, a minimum of gunfire as humanly possible), I think that all parties could be somewhat ameliorated, though not necessarily satisfied. It would give the Syrian rebels (again the seriously secular rebels, and I mean by western standards secular) a much better chance at a more fair fight in their civil war. None of us would have to get involved, and we could help with negotiations, as the Syrians try to sort out a resolution. Assad would be captured (preferably by the Arab League, not us), and tried.

Fantasy, I know, but it's a far cry better than "surgical' (read indiscriminate, from the minds of a Syrian civilian) strikes of any kind. There is no discernible "next step" in anything I've heard from the administration that doesn't have our country descend into Syria's civil war.

Reply
Julie
9/2/2013 05:45:31 am

You may as well shoot for the moon, right? :)

I think the reason you aren't hearing a "next step" is there isn't one intended. What's being proposed isn't about regime change or even boosting the rebels - it's strictly intended as a punitive response to the use of chemical weapons against civilian citizens. I think we need to be clear about what we're debating, because there are plenty of issues with that proposal alone.

Reply
J.Harris (The Lofty Left)
9/2/2013 10:49:02 am

I think that we all know that there is no way we could bomb anyplace and not have to deal with something in the aftermath. There definitely will be a "next step"; however, I am not confident that it will be a good one for any of us.




Leave a Reply.

    Politics & Policy
    all posts by Julie Boler

    Categories

    All
    2012 Election
    2016 Election
    Better Angels Journal
    Capitalism
    Church/state
    Conservatism
    Crime & Justice
    Democracy
    Election Law
    Gun Regulation
    Lgbt Policy
    Liberal Theory
    Media
    Obama
    Poverty
    Race
    Reproductive Law
    Voting Rights
    World Affairs

    Archives

    February 2019
    January 2018
    March 2017
    February 2017
    November 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    May 2016
    October 2014
    May 2014
    November 2013
    October 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photo used under Creative Commons from nathanrussell