Let's Vote!

[LoveLife&Laughter]

Do you think Congress will give Obama the go-ahead to bomb Syria?

[LoveLife&Laughter]

History tells me they will, but no one has seen a Congress like this in history, so I'm going to guess ... No!

[LoveLife&Laughter]

My feelings are the same as Chris Hayes, if I may borrow from him:

"Given the fact that Assad’s fighting literally for his life, I’m not quite sure a targeted punitive strike like the one being proposed will have that much of an effect. It may slightly alter the calculation of deploying such weapons again, but even if it does, if Assad thinks he has to use chemical weapons to win … or find himself drawn and quartered, guess what he is going to do?

Also, imagine the quagmire the US will find itself in if Assad does go ahead and used chemical weapons after we have punished him for doing so. Clearly, our red line will have to be enforced by even more punitive measures, and that way lies full entanglement in a bloody brutal civil war."

[LoveLife&Laughter]

And Bernie Sanders:

"Number one, the Congress as everybody knows is significantly dysfunctional today, and in the midst of a collapsing middle class, high unemployment, low wages, global warming, and all of the other major problems our country faces, We’re not dealing with them today, and what do you think happens if we get involved in a war in Syria where all the attention will be? How are we going to address the major problems facing our people?

Issue number two. The president talks about a surgical strike, limited engagement. But listen carefully to what people like Sen. McCain are talking about. That’s not what they’re talking about. They’re talking about regime change. They’re talking about overthrowing Assad. And that means billions and billions of dollars, and if the effort does not go well sometime in the future, it could, it could mean troops on the ground.

Third point, you know, we talk about a world of law. I have real concerns about the United States acting unilaterally without the United Nations, without NATO, without the international community. I think that sets a terrible precedent in the years to come for other countries to take similar action, and what are we going to say if Russia or China goes to war."

[exedir]

It should pass in the Senate, assuming it is the marked up bill from committee.  As to the House, nothing is sure in that whatever will be in a House bill won't be what the Senate bill is going to be like.

A lot of complicating issues here, and the political capital that is going to have to be spent is going to be high.  This one is really going to have to depend on what the minority Democrats can muster from a caucus that is not going to be happy with little cover available for those that have vocal constituent doves and possible primary challenges based on support of another war.  For those in the Republican caucus those that might be favorable will want something in return either from the House leadership or or from the administration for their vote.  

From the House leadership, the ruckus Republican members will want a guaranteed fight over the budget, the debt ceiling approval and a blow to to ObamaCare, that even needs to be more than just a re-vote to repeal, to get red meat they need for their constituents concerns, and to help forestall primary challenges.

The first problem is getting through the hearings, then the lobbying, then the unfortunate reminder of the 12th anniversary of 9/11 and finally the horse trading that is going to have to be done to get the authorization, an authorization the president didn't need in the first place.

And no, blaming the international community isn't going to work on this one, this whole mess has been mostly self-created.

[LoveLife&Laughter]

"For those in the Republican caucus "

Which Republican Caucus?

[exedir]

Clearly, the House Republican caucus is the one that is going to be divided as to interventionism vs. neo-isolationism and what-is-in-it-for-me-ism as to fending off any primary challenges for re-election.

In the Democrat caucus, there is a question of what and how much loyalty there is going to be to a lame duck president whose going to have rough going in his last three years, and the anti-war, anti-intervention constituency that is going to oppose, on principle, any thing related to Syria and any consequences and repercussions force is going to create in the region. 

[LoveLife&Laughter]

Democrats are allowed to vote for themselves.  Republicans / what ever they call themselves can't think for themselves, they're whipped as we say in politics.

[Ioruach]

Is there a Solomonic decision even available on this one?  Probably not.  Because there is no way to predict what the possible outcome of any decision will be.  A military strike could have several possible results, including additional chemical attacks on civilians.  No military strike, and clearly the civil war continues and the number of hardships and refugees mount.

Several years down the road we could look back to see if the right decision (if there is a right one at all) was made.  But no one I know has a time machine.

 
Over the past several days and weeks, I have read and listened to literally dozens of opinions on the matter from foreign relations experts and non experts alike.  As you all know, they are all over the board.  Does anyone wonder why presidents seem to show their age so much faster than the rest of us.

 
Perhaps there is no “right” decision on this one at all.  Just some that are less “bad” than the others.

[LoveLife&Laughter]

I think there are only two options:

1.  Do nothing

2.  Iraq III / WWIV

[exedir]

It is, and it is difficult one and probably low-reward, high blame regardless, at a minimum has two objectives.

The first is to punish Assad and the Assad regime for the use of chemical weapons in convention to international norms if not laws.

The second is to change the situation on the ground in favor of the opposition in the Syrian civil war.

The problem, actually problems, is a short-term, standoff, limited strike could do neither and make things worse for everyone inside of Syria and around it, much less what North Korea, Iran  and the other terrorist groups would make of it as weak, feeble and non-committed, almost entirely political intended strike.

[exedir]

Ok, so, the president speaks to the nation on Tuesday.  And yes, it is going to be a tough sell and difficult to be persuasive to the American people.

The polls are against action, congress is looking for excuses, not reasons for a supporting resolution and the international community is not lining up with the president on action against Assad.  

Obama is coming home from the G-20 with, nothing.  Not silence exactly, but nothing that can be a call to arms.  He is going this alone for the most part as far as the rest of the world is concerned.  

And yes, this is an unforced error, a box of his own making, a horse of a different color and the rest of his presidency depends on what will happen after Tuesday night.

[LoveLife&Laughter]

Isn't it nice to have a politician who listens to his people?