Somebody just advanced a theory that Obama doesn’t want to invade Syria and is doing what he can to avoid looking weak while sabotaging the invasion. And this is why he declared he will let the Congress that hates him have the final say. In the end, he won’t have to invade and will be able to blame the Congress for any consequences just as we go into the congressional electoral campaign.
This would be a beautiful world I don’t mind inhabiting.
Do we have any optimists who think this is a likely explanation around here?
Clarissa's Blog 
Yes
LikeLike
Mah!……Maybe he is that smart!
LikeLike
That is my most fervent hope. But I sort of think/ fear Congress is going to authorize the war.
LikeLike
I don’t think anyone except maybe John McCain is in favor of invasion. It’s more like Congressional approval for sending in some drones. Aside from that, the theory sounds plausible. Obama gets to blame Congress if it goes bad.
LikeLike
I think that Obama is going to feel compelled to attack Syria with cruise missiles and possibly aircraft (but not “invade” — which means sending in ground troops) no matter what Congress says. Remember that Obama ended his speech indicating that he would seek Congressional approval with the caveat that he really didn’t need their permission, anyway.
LikeLike
I feel that far too much of Obama’s presidency has already been spent in intrigues with congress, so it wouldn’t surprise me.
LikeLike
No. The draft of the resolution by Obama to be put forward to Congress gives him carte blanche to pursue any expansion of the initial effort, an open ended conflict with Syria and any other countries that he deems appropriate.
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2013/09/obamas-carte-blanche-war-resolution.html/
LikeLike
random good article:
http://www.madinamerica.com/2013/09/5-tasks-child-diagnosed-mental-illness-letter-parents/
LikeLike
About US – Europe – Iran – Israel & its lobbies. Even the site, which published the rubbish “Everything you wanted to know about how Zionists control US policy” piece (*), also published in 2012:
Israel’s Anti-Iran Campaign – A Favor To The U.S.
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2012/01/israels-anti-iran-campaign-a-favor-to-the-us.html
The Israelis are only delivering a very much wanted pretense. The utilization is done by the U.S. (and its European lackeys) for their own purposes.
Who controls Iran can control a big chunk of the world’s oil and gas flow and can use that control to put pressure on other countries. The U.S. still dreams of “full spectrum dominance”. Iran is one of the stumbling blocks on the road to achive that aim.
[…]
neither Hizbullah nor Iran are a serious strategic danger to Israel. I therefore regard the current campaign run by Israel as much as a favor done in support of the United States’ goals than something done out of genuine Israeli concern.
(*) The piece is here:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2009/01/i-was-recently-asked-to-answer-the-following-question-in-the-original-post-there-is-mention-of-israel-controlling-us-policy.html
LikeLike
About Syria and Obama:
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1377860226
GOOD QUOTE:
BUT THE main reason for Obama’s long hesitation is of quite a different order: he is compelled to act against the real interests of the United States.
Assad may be a terrible son-of-a-bitch, but he serves the US, nevertheless.
For many years the Assad family has supported the status quo in the region. Israel’s Syrian border is the quietest border Israel has ever had, in spite of the fact that Israel has annexed territory that indisputably belongs to Syria. True, Assad used Hizbullah to provoke Israel from time to time, but that was not a real threat.
Unlike Mubarak, Assad belongs to a minority sect. Unlike Mubarak, he has behind him a strong and well-organized political party, with an authentic ideology. The nationalist pan-Arabist Ba’ath (“resurrection”) party was founded by the Christian Michel Aflaq and his colleagues mainly as a bulwark against the Islamist ideology.
Like the fall of Mubarak, the fall of Assad would most likely lead to an Islamist regime, more radical than the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. The Syrian sister-party of the brothers was always more radical and more violent than the Egyptian mother-movement, (perhaps because the Syrian people are by nature of a far more aggressive disposition.)
Moreover, it is in the nature of a civil war that the most extreme elements take over, because their fighters are more determined and more self-sacrificing. No amount of foreign aid will prop up the moderate, secular section of the Syrian rebels strongly enough to enable them to take over after Assad. If the Syrian state remains intact, it will be a radical Islamist state. Especially if there are free, democratic elections, as there were in Egypt.
As seen from Washington DC, this would be a disaster. So we have here the curious picture of Obama driven by his own rhetoric to attack Assad, while all his own intelligence agencies work overtime to prevent a victory of the rebels.
As somebody recently wrote: it is in the American interest that the civil war go on forever, without any side winning. To which practically all Israeli political and military leaders would say: Amen.
So, from the US strategic viewpoint, any attack on Assad must be minimal, a mere pinprick that would not endanger the Syrian regime.
As has been noted, love and politics create strange bedfellows. At the moment, a very strange assortment of powers are interested in the survival of the Assad regime: the US, Russia, Iran, Hizbullah and Israel. Yet Obama is being pushed to attack him.
Poor Obama.
TRYING TO understand the mindset of the CIA, I would say that from their point of view, the Egyptian solution is also the best for Syria: topple the dictator and put another dictator in his place. Military dictatorship for everybody in the Arab region.
Not the solution Barack Obama would have liked to be identified with in the history books.
Poor, poor Obama.
LikeLike
Invading Iraq was also not in the US interests. Nor was invading Vietnam. Not that anybody seems to care, though.
LikeLike
Any world power that does any invasion has its best interest involved. The five major arms dealers in the world are US, France, Russia, China and Germany. The first 4 can be seen in conflicts all around the world. All making money off them!
LikeLike
If the US congress votes against war with Syria, the media will say it is a “humiliation” for Obama, as they did with Cameron. Actually it would let him off the hook. He wouldn’t have to back down and admit he was wrong.
LikeLike
Obama lines up key support in Congress for Syria attack
Many lawmakers remain undecided on military action, but key leaders in the House and Senate say they support a limited mission.
http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-us-syria-20130904,0,1530350.story
Late Tuesday, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee agreed on language authorizing U.S. military action against Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons in the suburbs of Damascus, while ruling out the commitment of U.S. ground forces and limiting the window for an attack to 90 days. A committee vote could come as early as Wednesday.
Information which politicians are for / against is in the article.
LikeLike
Looks important and explaining some part of the truth of Syria:
When climate change becomes a matter of war and peace
http://real-economics.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/when-climate-change-becomes-matter-of.html
Have you seen this blog before? Looks interesting:
This Blog is about the economic and technological facts every Progressive needs to know–the neglected stories of the real economy
QUOTE:
Syria has been convulsed by civil war since climate change came to Syria with a vengeance. Drought devastated the country from 2006 to 2011.
[…] Hundreds of thousands of Syria’s farmers gave up, abandoned their farms and fled to the cities and towns in search of almost non-existent jobs and severely short food supplies. Outside observers including UN experts estimated that between 2 and 3 million of Syria’s 10 million rural inhabitants were reduced to “extreme poverty.”
[…] So tens of thousands of frightened, angry, hungry and impoverished former farmers flooded constituted a “tinder” that was ready to catch fire. The spark was struck on March 15, 2011 when a relatively small group gathered in the town of Daraa to protest against government failure to help them. Instead of meeting with the protestors and at least hearing their complaints, the government cracked down on them as subversives. The Assads, who had ruled the country since 1971, were not known for political openness or popular sensitivity. And their action backfired. Riots broke out all over the country, As they did, the Assads attempted to quell them with military force.
LikeLike
Badtux the Snarky Penguin noted the connection between Iraq and what began in Syria:
The main reason that protests originally started up in Syria was not because he was a harsh ruler (he pretty much is just your average run of the mill Middle Eastern dictator, as long as you don’t oppose his rule he doesn’t bother you) but, rather, because the economy is a shambles. The economy is a shambles because of over a million Iraqi refugees and not enough jobs, housing, or *water* for all those people. The Muslim Brotherhood / Al Qaeda types saw that widespread discontent over high unemployment and lack of housing and etc. as an opening and took it.
In other words, this mess is because we kicked over the Iraqi beehive if you go back to root causes. We destabilized the entire Middle East to make Iraq safe for, uhm, Iran, I guess. Wow, what a great idea that was, eh?
The above article talks about the competition with Iraqi refugees too. I would guess that the situation would come to a boiling point w/o Iraqis in Syria too, but they helped nevertheless.
LikeLike
Give it to Americans to turn themselves into the cause of everything. 🙂 No wonder my students believe the US conquered Europe in 711.
LikeLike
Latest on Syria:
https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/syria-bullshit-tornado/f4f7bd1ae409bd4e9ecd024cd0bb81471a33a869/
LikeLike