Somewhat amazingly, we have a president who actually understands the Middle East and the complications involved in taking a side in the Syrian civil war. He actually uses language at the end of this exchange that is indistinguishable from what I’ve been saying.
CHARLIE ROSE: So you think a no fly zone is not necessary?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: What I’m saying is, that if you haven’t been in the Situation Room, poring through intelligence and meeting directly with our military folks and asking, what are all our options, and examining what are all the consequences, and understanding that for example, if you set up a no-fly zone, that you may not be actually solving the problem on the zone.
Or if you set up a humanitarian corridor, are you in fact committed not only to stopping aircraft from going that corridor, but also missiles? And if so, does that mean that you then have to take out the armaments in Damascus and are you prepared then to bomb Damascus? And what happens if there’s civilian casualties. And have we mapped all of the chemical weapons facilities inside of Syria to make sure that we don’t drop a bomb on a chemical weapons facility that ends up then dispersing chemical weapons and killing civilians, which is exactly what we’re trying to prevent.
Unless you’ve been involved in those conversations, then it’s kind of hard for you to understand that the complexity of the situation and how we have to not rush into one more war in the Middle East. And we’ve got —
CHARLIE ROSE: So that’s why people think you haven’t, because you do not want to get involved in another conflict, having extricated the United States from Iraq and also soon from Afghanistan.”
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Charlie, I —
CHARLIE ROSE: And the idea of another conflict and getting involved in a war that had real significant Sunni-Shia implications and could explode into the region, you want no part of that, even though there has been a turn in the tide in Syria with the Assad regime and the Assad army, with the help of Hezbollah, doing better.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yeah, Charlie, that shouldn’t just be my concern, that should be everybody’s concern, you know. We went through that. We know what it’s like to rush into a war in the Middle East without having thought it through. And there are elements within the Middle East who see this entirely through the prism of a Shia-Sunni conflict and want the United States to simply take the side of the Sunnis. And that I do not think serves American interests. As I said before, the distinction I make is between extremists and those who are recognized in a 21st century world that the way the Middle East is going to succeed is when you have governments that meet the aspirations of their people, that are tolerant, that are not sectarian. And working through that is something that we have to do in deliberate fashion. So when I hear debates out there, on the one hand, folks saying, you know, ‘Katie, bar the door, let’s just go in and knock out Syria —
I don’t think Washington is capable of this level of nuance, and that presents a problem, For Washington, if anything is going Iran’s way or Russia’s way, it must be coming at our expense. But the president understands that elements of the rebellion in Syria are worse than Assad, both for religious minorities in Syria and for the United States and Israel. He also understands that the conflict is morphing into a sectarian conflict and that we cannot simply take the side of the Sunnis.
At the same time, we are under pressure from Sunni allies like Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia to prevent the Shiites from prevailing in this fight. It might be possible for Obama to navigate these treacherous waters because he has a very sophisticated understanding of the issues, but it seems like he is almost alone in Washington. And he can’t control our allies. It looks like Obama has lifted his ban on allowing Saudi Arabia to provide the rebels with shoulder-fired anti-aircraft and anti-tank weapons. Presumably, the CIA is carefully monitoring who gets these weapons, but the policy is incredibly difficult. If we are not really pursuing outright victory but conditions that can lead to meaningful mediation, we need American thought-leaders and policymakers to be on board with that. And I don’t think we have more than one person in Washington who can understand armed conflict in these terms.
I’m going to start with being glad that the one person who gets it is the one person who is in charge. I don’t underestimate his ability to persuade others to see his reasoning. He has a great history of being right about things when others around him are not. His long game, which frankly I think can be sustained long after his second term is up, is what I look at.
I’m not entirely sure what he’s persuaded others about, from a policy perspective.
.
We’ll invade. Because we’re the US, it’s all about the oil, and imperialism is imperialism. It never changes, because it can’t
The rest is just noise.
I mean, look at Libya — floating on a lake of oil. Our troops will still be there when Sasha and/or Melia are running for Congress.
Syria has less oil than Louisiana.
Pull the other leg, it’s got bells on it.
Might as well try to convince me we’d put 100,000 troops into a country without any oil — like, say, Afghanistan.
.
Let’s invade Louisiana and free the Liberals!
Aside from the CIA and the Marines at the embassies, we have no troops in Libya.
That’s impossible. There’s still oil there.
Sarcasm can be tough in a plain text format, Davis.
No facial expressions. No body language. No intonation.
Obama is transitioning us to a non-hegemonic international leadership role; that is the international relations/ poly sci phrasing. You need to get out more. [I know, “transition” is not a transitive verb]
poli-sci
Obama is transitioning us to a non-hegemonic international leadership role
While simultaneously trying to figure out what that is.
I wouldn’t want his job.
yes, definitely uncharted waters
what’s the harm in arming al qaeda?
First, I’m not sure that Washington is incapable of this level of nuance; I suspect that Washington is operating under a different set of priorities.
Second, unless I misunderstand the meaning of ‘Washington’, the last sentence reads like hero-worship and undermines the rest of the post.
wouldn’t be right to engage in hero worship, unless its John Edwards, Anthony Weiner, or Bernie “i’m against closing GITMO” Sanders.
Plenty of people in DC understand nuance. But they tend not to be the people who put themselves in front of cameras.
The ones who do, and the ones who own the cameras, tend to think “nuance” in these discussions is what type of steel toed boot to use when we kick their ass.
Fucking sociopaths.
That’s a major element no doubt. The corporate media needs to dumb it down for wide American consumption. And they need to dress up the urgency and potential conflict via their advertising teasers to drive viewers to their “news shows”.
What percentage of Americans can locate Syria on a map? 5% tops.
Still I do think that the US has had a tragic history by policy makers that lacked nuanced understanding of other countries and cultures. And worse, they lacked respect for that understanding – so never got sufficient input from resources with that experience.
I think Obama is unique among Presidents for his knowledge and respect of other cultures.
.
In a TV report, it was mentioned the French have been monitoring the distribution of medical supplies going into Syria through their own aid groups and the United Nations. This data has been used for mapping the multiple rebel groups fighting in Syria. No one can say for sure whether today’s rebel groups will survive the day or decide to join another better equipped jihadist group tomorrow. President Francois Hollande has been attacked at home for outright lying as he is caught giving different answers within a matter of weeks. The US and Saudi Arabia rely on the old-colonial power France to supply arms to designated rebel groups. The dozens or more groups have also been known for infighting: the Syrian Kurds oppose most rebel groups and the Al-Nusra Front fighters have recently slaughterd FSA rebels in the eastern city of Al Raqqa.
If Saudi Arabia and Qatar aren’t on the same page, then which one is the American cat’s paw? I have it on excellent authority that Saudi Arabia and Qatar are American puppet states, whose policies on arming the Syrian rebels are determined by Washington.
Having half of the G8 openly siding with you is actually the opposite of “marginalized.”
McCain had Palin and Joe the Plumber. Obama has Biden and Joe the Patriot. Israel has the Hasbara gang. Somewhere in between you are doing great Joe. Always a joy to have you around. 😉
So, no answer then.
The Saudi-Qatari split doesn’t discredit the “American cat’s paw” argument because…something about Sarah Palin.
The support of half the G8 doesn’t mean that the US isn’t isolated, because…something about Joe the Plumber.
Well, I’m convinced.
The question we need to start asking relative to the Middle East is who is the cats paw of whom?
And why are we selling our most advanced weaponry to a Wahabist monarchy?
.
The crown prince and later King Abdullah always had a great interest in Al-Sham (Greater Syria).
See my diary – The Saudi-Israeli Alliance and Piggy-back Coup of 2005.
My diary in 2012 – US Foreign Policy, Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood Ploy.
Obama is beholden to the Corpus Military Industrial Complex – Critics Slam Obama Administration for ‘Hiding’ Massive Saudi Arms Deal Worth $60bn.
The question we need to start asking relative to the Middle East is who is the cats paw of whom?
The question I like to ask is, if Saudi Arabia is a puppet state, why is gas $4 a gallon?
It is very interesting that Jordanian officials are distancing themselves from the Marines and Patriot battery that the US is leaving behind in Jordan at the end of joint military exercises. They don’t want that “Made in USA” stamp on their participation.
So who besides John McCain is pushing this decision? And why are the arms flooding in from Qatar and Saudi purchases not adequate?
I want someone to ask McCain why the Saudi’s cannot use their planes and pilots to setup a no fly zone?
Because the Saudi pilots went to the McCain/Bush flight school.
Awesome.
The mean goes to 9, and the funny to 10.
They will probably have that capability, whether we like it or not. It is all about logistics.
Any involvement in Syria should come with a War Tax on the top 5% of wage earners. I doubt Republicans will want to pay for US involvement in a war in Syria. And that will halt all the Rubio’s from taking a tough stance.
Make that those in the top 50% of all income earned. Wages are a small or negligible portion of income for those at the top. And while DC responds more favorably and quickly to the demands of the 1%, democracy is better served when the pain of follies is more broadly shared.
Per TPM, Obama said that the US has a legitimate need to be involved in Syria.
Can someone state what that need is and what makes it legitimate?
.
The joint communique signed by all the G8 leaders … (Not Harper’s G7 +1)
Cross-posted from my diary – Obama Sidelined on Syria, Hollande and King Abdullah Deliver Arms to Syrian Rebels.
Where have I heard that before? And why do I keep hearing helicopter blades whipping in the background? And the song? (“It ain’t me. It ain’t me. I ain’t no fortunate son.”)
I am fairly certain only outright victory can lead to meaningful mediation.
You do have a point. Like the Allies negotiated with Admiral Donitz.
Yep.
“Are you going to leave the country willingly or feet first?”
It might be possible for Obama to navigate these treacherous waters because he has a very sophisticated understanding of the issues, but it seems like he is almost alone in Washington.
Hey, he’s got John Kerry.
I’m sure that’s very reassuring.