Thomas Sowell sums up Obama vs. Syria in one sentence
And here it is:
When the President of the United States issues an ultimatum to another sovereign nation, he should know in advance what he is going to do if that ultimatum is rejected.
The New Neo
A blog about political change, among other things
Neo-Neocon,
In past posts you have written about your belief that the weakening of America’s prestige and influence abroad has been the result of Obama’s conscious attempt rather than an accidental consequence of any ineptitude.
Assuming that your thesis correct, what amazes me is that a man who narcissistically revels in being the leader of the world’s only superpower, a man who narcissistically lives for the adulation of the public and a man who narcicisstically believes that his wishes will be obeyed simply because he uttered them doesn’t realize that by diluting America’s credibility and influence, he makes himself a secondary and inconsequential figure on the world stage that he struggles to command.
How he could believe that his image, prestige and influence would remain untouched as he diluted the image, prestige and influence of the country he “leads” is beyond me.
I’d suggest that this actually demands that Obama lacks even the mote of insight that his detractors might give him credit for.
Folks here have asked why top Republicans like McCain have backed Obama. This is why.
Whatever they feel about Obama himself, what’s at stake is the integrity of President of the United States in world affairs.
Taken in isolation, Obama’s decision to punish a chemical attack in the Middle East is very normal for the US President at this point of world affairs.
Obama’s struggle in his execution of that decision is abnormal and indicative of his poor leadership.
It matters. What if Bush’s 2 predecessors in the Oval Office had been stronger with Saddam? One, Bush wouldn’t have had to clean up our mess in Iraq. Two, if there was still a mess to clean up in Iraq, then at least Saddam’s rational calculation about his brinkmanship with the US would have been different. Saddam believed until the end that the US would back down, just as the US talked tough and made threatening gestures, but had ultimately backed down from Saddam under Bush Senior and Clinton.
With a great deal of American blood, treasure, and trauma, Bush won back the integrity of the Presidency in world affairs that was lost by his post-Cold War predecessors. Then, instead of building on Bush’s gains, Obama squandered them.
Obama is leaving a mess to clean up. McCain is trying to save what’s left of the integrity of the Office for the next guy.
Eric,
I can’t say I agree with that. McCain has proven himself to be not that deep a thinker. An example: So McCain’s vote for military action would be a vote to punish a dictator who murders his own people which, in turn, would be support for groups (like Al Quaida) which murder and torture Christians, women and children.
Furthermore, since Obama has already announced that a Syria strike would have no objective, if McCain thinks such a strike would enhance America and her president, he’s even more of a fool than I thought.
The key is this: Obama falsely assumed to himself the sovereignty of the United States (perhaps he doesn’t actually understand the meaning of sovereignty in the United States, or perhaps he is simply a thief), and then issued an ultimatum. He had no right. But, now careless as always, he plows ahead regardless of his unjust act.
It remains for the people of the United States to seize their sovereignty back from him. Tell your Congressmen and Senators to vote no. Make your proper role in our polity plain. Don’t allow the theft to go without rebuke.
T,
My point is that McCain isn’t thinking that deeply. I don’t dispute that Obama is proposing a Clinton-era action when the Clinton doctrine was rendered obsolete on 9/11.
The motivation I described is more basic than the issue at hand.
It’s as simple as the word of the American Commander in Chief and Head Statesman should have intrinsic dominance and authority in world affairs. Even when the US President is mistaken.
In here, at home, the US President is a democratic leader (within liberal, republican conditions, etc). But out there, global US leadership of the free world is not intrinsically democratic. As the leader of the free world, when the US President says jump, the free world ought to jump.
Presidents don’t start over. They inherit their positions. Think of it as a military platoon leader or a husband/father head of household. Apart from the disputed wisdom of the specific order, the basic integrity of the authority of the leader position to issue that order and have it followed matters greatly to the long-term functionality of the social unit.
sdferr,
What are you talking about? Obama is the President of the United States – he did not falsely assume sovereignty. I wouldn’t call it a “right”, but his red line was within the purview of his official duties.
If Congress wishes to exercise its restraining power under our system of checks and balances or if the procedural process for committing military action needs to be adjusted, either is legitimate, but it is not legitimate to say that Obama is acting under a false assumption of sovereignty. Apart from the wisdom of the action and his competency as a leader, Obama is acting within his official duties in foreign affairs.
Eric,
So, if I understand you correctly, you’re talking about “saluting the uniform, not the man.” if so, I can understand that, and it would be absolutely in keeping with McCain’s military background—the authroity of his C-I-C.
One thing I don’t understand is your following statement: “As the leader of the free world, when the US President says jump, the free world ought to jump.”
Are you saying that McCain thinks this should be the case, or that it should be the case internationally or what exactly? I just couldn’t make the connection here.
The President is a temporary ministerial head of government and head of state, named the Executive. He is not the sovereign of the United States, which exists as a divided sovereignty of people (primarily and unalterably), States, and Union.
If a President believes an ultimatum would be in the interests of the United States, he properly may attempt to persuade the people to join their sovereignty with his judgment of the exigency at hand. If the people would refuse his persuasive efforts, he does well to obey them. If, on the other hand, the exigency is an emergency, he may take the risk to act without the people’s say so. But he’d best be correct in that unusual judgment that an actual emergency exists.
Here, there has been no effort at persuasion whatsoever. And as we see, there is no emergency, for the President can go off golfing.
T,
That’s right.
Forgive me. I’m adapting a memory from one of my early counselings as a soldier from my first OIC.
CPT J encouraged his troops to critically question our mission and procedures. Not just the technical and tactical whats, but also the strategic and policy whys.
He fully allowed that his most junior private was smart enough to make a suggestion that could improve our whole operation. But CPT J impressed on us – on me – that when it was time for us to do our job, and he gave an order, we – I – needed to jump. And the questions I could ask at that point were on the order of how high, how far, how fast, etc.. And I better ask them and process the answers quickly.
To clarify, I’m not saying we American citizens should defer like that to our domestically elected leader.
I am saying that in the competitive global arena, that’s the relationship the US, as represented by POTUS, needs to have with the nation-state members of the free world. There’s a time for them to debate, question, recommend to, etc, the US, but when it’s time to do our job collectively, we need to jump.
That’s why we have an Executive empowered with war and other active powers in the competitive global arena.
What McCain is doing for Obama is what platoon sergeants and wives are forced to do with sub-par lieutenants and husbands/heads-of-household.
T: “Are you saying that McCain thinks this should be the case”
I don’t know if that’s what McCain thinks, but it’s a logical extrapolation of my thesis.
sdferr: “Here, there has been no effort at persuasion whatsoever.”
I agree there. As I said upthread, taken in isolation, Obama’s decision – apart from the wisdom, effectiveness, etc, of the specific proposed action – is normal at this point in world affairs.
The abnormality is Obama’s poor leadership.
The corollary to that would be if he decides to do something, he should also think about what’s next for that region and the consequences. It appears from his recent dithering and hesitation that all his thinking ahead is political in nature, in terms of how it affects himself and his image. Securing political cover from the GOP is the only security Obama is interested in, and as usual, he can count on the first Tridumbvirate Boner, McCain, and Graham.
There’s little evidence he’s thinking about, or intends to think about what happens if our interests or our allies interests are worse off afterward, and what he would do about it that scenario.
The most disturbing thing I’ve read in the last day has been his intention to “engage Putin”. I translate that as ” I’m willing to make whatever nuclear or strategic arms reductions/concessions are necessary to you, if you just make me look good now”.
In my opinion, there is nothing that Obama will not do within his power to improve his appearance and popularity, and that includes selling out US security. A behind the scenes arms deal is a card he would gladly play in exchange for the media to once again trumpet his nobleness. And it’s a card Putin would gladly accept in exchange for a statement that he’s not opposed to Obama’s face-saving adventure.
Obama is a despicable person, with no loyalty to this country or its people
First and foremost is Obama. Anyone who thinks there’s anything but bottomless well of selfishness and vanity in this guy is delusional.
You may think it normal Eric, but it remains that it is not in keeping with the Constitution of the United States, the instrument to which the Executive is sworn, and makes a solemn oath to uphold. If this disjunction is not a problem (or the problem), we’re at a loss to say what is. I think the forgetfulness of the people on this point — or possibly there was nothing to be forgotten, since the fact of the matter has never been taught to the people? — is at the root of our general confusion in our government.
sdferr,
Your interpretation of the Constitution on this issue hasn’t been operative since the 19th century.
Operative. Ha! That’s a good one. I’ll search the Constitution to see if I can find it.
In the meantime, people should write their Congressmen and Senators to let them know what their views are on the question whether to authorize in their name that the President will take the United States to war by committing an act of war on Syria.
Best too, to remind their Representatives that war isn’t limited by ourselves or our intentions (or the conceit of a Secretary of State), but is ever determined by the efforts of our enemies (see Federalist no. 41).
Barack Obama: Don’t tell me words don.t matter….Just words? Just speeches?
sdferr – already did write him a few times. I hope others have too, but mine votes with Boner most of the time, and doesn’t care much about what anybody in his district thinks about it. That’s something you can afford when you run unopposed and have a lot of money.
For the record, the honorable Micheal McCaul sends out regular newsletters, reassuring us that as homeland security chairman, he’s hard at work, forming committees to choose other committees who may one day look into the Benghazi mishap, and other government failures. And to let us know, he’s on the NSA case, who are really working hard to keep our emails from falling into the hands of Obama. Or something like that.
And also reminders not to forget who to make the checks out to, so he can keep us informed about all the hard work he’s planning to do someday.
“The Los Angeles Times quotes a U.S. official who says President Obama wants an attack “just muscular enough not to get mocked.”
I marvel at the dynamics. The accidental President acts the fool, the venal morons of Congress will likely acquiesce to a sufficiently muscular attack, not for the President’s sake but for the Presidency’s, as totem for the country. Some innocents may die not in the midst of a regional power struggle but as convenience to American face saving. This is satire — genius satire. No-one writes the stuff anymore, they live it — on a global scale — theater in the round.
Pathetic! And it’s one thing for the nimrod with the big guns to go looking for trouble, it’s another to look for it in a hornet’s nest.
he did.
he said (in his head) “America is a bully, and i am a bully, and no one fights a bully. when they beat me up in indonesia, i didnt fight back… did i?”
ie. in the old days, it was called war
but liberal war doctrine ignores Clausewitz
which i said to read
here is what obama ACTUALLY SAID yesterday:
“I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line,” Obama said. “My credibility’s not on the line. The international community’s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’s credibility’s on the line.”
It is even better to act quickly and err than to hesitate until the time of action is past.
Carl von Clausewitz
To secure peace is to prepare for war.
Carl von Clausewitz
[so Obama not securing peace, means he will be unprepared for the war]
The political object is the goal, war is the means of reaching it, and the means can never be considered in isolation from their purposes.
Carl von Clausewitz
War is not an exercise of the will directed at an inanimate matter.
Carl von Clausewitz
Kind-hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat the enemy without too much bloodshed, and might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war. Pleasant as it sounds, it is a fallacy that must be exposed: War is such a dangerous business that mistakes that come from kindness are the very worst.
[this contradicts tsun tsu]
but all you have to do is read the first page, to know what obama and everyone else who doesnt read, never figured out on their own. you can tell that by the way they come up with high falutin bizare explanations for it, and nothing as simple
I WHAT IS WAR? page 1
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1946/1946-8.txt
We shall not enter into any of the abstruse definitions of War used by publicists. We shall keep to the element of the thing itself, to a duel.
War is nothing but a duel on an extensive scale. If we would conceive as a unit the countless number of duels which make up a War, we shall do so best by supposing to ourselves two wrestlers. Each strives by physical force to compel the other to submit to his will: each endeavors to throw his adversary, and thus render him incapable of further resistance.
WAR THEREFORE IS AN ACT OF VIOLENCE INTENDED TO COMPEL OUR OPPONENT TO
FULFILL OUR WILL.
that is how it starts…
no fancy bs, just a fight in which one intends to force the other to do something the other does not want to do and will not do, until boots are on the ground, people are killed and the killing reaches the halls of choices
Violence arms itself with the inventions of Art and Science in order to contend against violence. Self-imposed restrictions, almost imperceptible and hardly worth mentioning, termed usages of International Law, accompany it without essentially impairing its power.
Violence, that is to say, physical force (for there is no moral force without the conception of States and Law), is therefore the MEANS; the compulsory submission of the enemy to our will is the ultimate object.
In order to attain this object fully, the enemy must be disarmed, and disarmament becomes therefore the immediate OBJECT of hostilities in theory. It takes the place of the final object, and puts it aside as something we can eliminate from our calculations.
and when the other says “NO!”
the war starts..
we are heading to war… to war… to war
like all progressive presidents he wants it
it heats up the world so that they can remold it
it will murder the smart population leaving welfare behind
but ultimately… Wilson (WWI) FDR (WWII)
and guess what the big O wants to be equal to?
but he thought he would set the terms, and say when and with such power it woudl be easy…
however, there are lots of other players… and they have even had a part in edumacating the president… who unilaterally disarmed much of the military, changed the rules, destroyed moral, and on and on. and thats not including over 100 items i can list that are bad in terms of preparing for peace.
Russia Boosts Mediterranean Flotilla as U.S. Weighs Syria Strike
Russia is sending three more ships to the east Mediterranean to bolster its fleet there
Russia is sending two destroyers, including the Nastoichivy, the flagship of the Baltic Fleet, and the Moskva missile cruiser to the region, Interfax reported today, citing an unidentified Navy official. That follows last week’s dispatch of a reconnaissance ship to the eastern Mediterranean, four days after the deployment of an anti-submarine ship and a missile cruiser to the area, which were reported by Interfax.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-04/russia-boosts-mediterranean-flotilla-as-u-s-weighs-syria-strike.html
the more boats, the more people, the more likely an accident the more likely what?
now does anyone want to detail what ships are all gathered in the med around this and how peeved they are that the US and isreal picked now to do a missile test
the USS San Antonio makes the 6th ship…
but there is also a carrier group rerouted (nimitz)…
this puts a few subs, a couple more destroyers, and warships in place
the carrier has four destroyers and at least one cruiser
not since jutland has so much big stuff been in one place
one accident..
a missle takes out all advisors…
things can heat up fast and bad
and unlike the past (see isreal war)
the current administration obviously does not really grasp the sensitivity and thinks it can flub and fix later whatever it does..
can it?
Campaigning is his strong suit. Governing is not. – Sowell
NOW, will someone PLEASE go back to the long telegram and note whats in it that i said way back in 2007?
that the soviets and such were so interested in power and gaining it, that they had no means of governance, and that this was laid out in the long telegram
ie. when it comes to being the dog chasing the car, they focused so much on catching it, they had and have no idea what to do if they succeed.
and the play by ear is a way of avoiding the talking as to the cargo cult ideas he is using. shows of this shows of that, threats… all surface and not understanding how thye really work in substance.
Fed. no. 4:
*** It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people. ***
southpaw (@12:30),
I think you are correct and I think that this will be Obama’s legacy. We are already beginning to see the slow about-face of some of his sycophants (Robert DeNiro, “He’s trying his best,” Chris Matthews “We’ll be killing poor people,” Andrea Mitchell accusing Obama of bumbling and being ineffective, etc.).
I think the coming decades will not be kind to Obama. The relationship between him, the public and his sycophants will wane once he’s out of office and leaves daily media exposure behind. Then historians, even those partial to him now, will begin to sort out the history of his administration. Yes he will get profitable overpaid speaking gigs from his most loyal adherents (media, universities) but because the evil that he does now will live after him, I expect that he will wander zombie-like, much as Jimmy Carter does now, under the cloud of being continually exposed as the worst president and the worst administration in this country’s history .
I believe that this will be a slow process but an inexorable one and he will be villified to an unexpected extent well within his own lifetime. For such a narcissist as he is, this will be a living Hell.
A fitting Nemesis to his hubris.
Sowell also sums up Obama in another two sentences:
“Make no mistake about it, Barack Obama is a very clever man. But, cleverness is not wisdom, or even common sense.”
And the rest of his piece is so spot on as well!
As per sdferr and Fed. no. 4:
He gets it.
Thomas Sowell: “”Military action” is a polite phrase for killing people. It would be nice to believe that this has some larger purpose than saving Barack Obama from political embarrassment, after having issued an ultimatum without having thought through what he would do if that ultimatum was ignored.
He has the authority to take military action if he wants to. The question is whether he can sucker the Republicans into giving him political cover by pre-approving his unknown actions and unknown goals.”
Just so. That’s why I believe Republicans should vote “present.”
Two things:
1. If we do nothing, our credibility is diminished.
2. If we do a cosmetic strike, our credibility is also diminished. All of Clinton’s half-hearted responses to Mogadishu, the African (Kenya, Tanzania) embassy bombings, the barracks bombing in Saudi Arabia, and the USS Cole bombing led to diminished credibility.
If we are to take action, it should be robust enough to seriously degrade Assad’s military capabilities and to beef up aid to the FSA. That could lead to two things:
1. New respect for the U.S. and POTUS.
or
2. A wider war.
Sowell, again: “When the President of the United States issues an ultimatum to another sovereign nation, he should know in advance what he is going to do if that ultimatum is rejected.”
Does anyone think Obama has thought this out beyond his plans to dis Putin and Russia on their treatment of the GLTGB community?
Based on the above, I am leaning toward the option of doing nothing, which would probably be no worse, credibility wise, than doing a very limited strike.
On the other hand, all of this demands that Congress reverse Obama’s hollowing out of the military. “To make peace, prepare for war.”
J.J. et.al. says:
“To make peace, prepare for war.”
Maybe you can loan your copy of “The Art of War” to BO.
Eh, at this point it would be hard for Obama to craft a response where we are not diminished. And a military response will likely aid al Quida.
We should sit this one out.
No way do I want to see us get into a war with this POS as CIC.
Perhaps this telegraphing and dithering is a ruse designed to get Assad to move his assets, and in the process, give up their location — a road map.
Let’s not forget, Secretary of State Thurston Howell III stated in a press conference yesterday “we have a map”.
We might at this moment have covert assets on the ground, tracking the movements of the weapons. This could very well be a trap hatched by the military genius himself. After the weapons are located, he can personally direct Seal Team 6, er.. make that Seal Team 7 from the White House bowling alley.
Finally, Americans are interrupted in the middle of Monday Night Football for a special news alert — A BO press conference to the American people. The curtains open to His Majesty, chin held high in the air, cape flowing in the breeze, to announce he has single handedly planned a mission (in between the 17th and 18th holes) Day), which took out Assad’s weapons of mass destruction, with 0 US casualties and 0 loss of civilian life. Once again, Super Barack makes the world safe for democracy.
“As the leader of the free world, when the US President says jump, the free world ought to jump.”
I am my own sovereign and determine what is right and what is wrong for me and mine. I do not ‘jump’ on command; especially at the command of someone I do not respect. Individuals and nations jump to what they perceive to be in the own best interests. It is not wise to believe that when BHO says jump one should jump. The exact opposite is true.
As far as McCain is concerned, its not polite to say what I think about his treatment of Palin which showed his true colors.
Eric Says:
September 4th, 2013 at 11:35 am
OK, I understand what you’re saying, and it’s a good point.
But we lost the integrity of the office in 2008 when we elected Obama to it. That horse has already left the barn.
Supporting Obama’s command authority would make sense if he were simply a bumbling incompetent who believed he was acting in America’s best interest.
But I believe that nothing could be further from the truth.
Did you see Dinesh D’Souza’s movie “2016”? It came out during the 2012 campaign. He showed that Obama primarily identifies with the Third World. Leftists and “anti-colonialists” believe that America is an evil global hegemon, and Obama was thoroughly immersed in that way of thinking.
This may sound like tinfoil hat territory, but I believe that Obama wishes to see the United States suffer a military defeat. It would be a powerful psychological blow to the American people. He may well regard himself as an “avenging angel” of the oppressed masses of the Third World.
Couple that with the fact that striking the Assad government assists Islamic radicals who are affiliated with al-Qaeda, and it is clear that Obama must be opposed as strongly as possible.
Why would he? No one who couldn’t later be browbeaten or at least swamped with charges of racism or inhumanity, or Gaia forbid, insensitivity, has ever laughed in his face before.
Whatever you think of those in the Syrian regime, and I don’t think much of it or them, they are playing for keeps, for life and death stakes. Why they should care enough of what some simpering moral imbecile in the White House and his cadre of aging leftist flunkies think of them so as to willingly climb up on the altar of self-sacrifice, is beyond me. I live in this country, and I don’t care enough about him or those who voted for him to give a damn how badly he is humiliated or what it costs “our” credibility.
I guess the left has convinced me that “we” really don’t have the same vital interests, hence no “we”. I cite here as an example Michael Moore and his infamous remarks after 9/11 expressing exasperation, or something like it, that it was not the rubes in the flyover country who were the direct focus of Al Qaeda’s homicidal successes.
Thus, I’m about this far from rooting for the official “bad guys” to get their own blows in; which means this far from being amused by watching a scrap between two equally unprincipled and morally contemptible groups of crypto-fascist freedom haters.
A kind of grim amusement, it’s true.
And which, since I actually live and am life invested in one of the countries, is, I admit, a bit like letting your run-down house burn just for the satisfaction of watching an infestation of rats flee.
Southpaw, the peace prepare for war thing is not tsun tsu art of war, its a variation of Clausewitz “On War”
To secure peace is to prepare for war.
Carl von Clausewitz
Art is close, but that is only one of the latter derivations of the military concept.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum
Sun Tzu’s primary concern was overall strategic and tactical mistake avoidance. Clausewitz seemed to have produced more material on the specific logistics and order of things, as expected for the Germans. It’s more specific, more detail orientated, more modern. Due to a problem with paper/wood production and enemies deciphering your plans, the Ancient Chinese didn’t write down too much stuff. Art of War is primarily a self constructed manual, since as a manual it can’t really produce competence even amongst those with potential. Thus it wasn’t a threat when enemies read it, as they could never outperform the original concept artist.
Anyways, foreigners think America is the country of the gun since the government can go around killing children at WACO and civilians at Ruby Ridge and the population just wants more civilians disarmed and more government goons with guns.
Foreigners also think Americans are hypocrites at the world justice league game since we push around dictators like Gaddafi who cooperated with past American Presidents and support terrorists vs dictators, while letting rebelling Iranians die to the Mullahs even though Americans talk about freedom and protesting above all else.
Obviously, 1. don’t cooperate with Americans, they’ll get rid of you when they feel like it. 2. Don’t defend Americans, because they’d rather kill you and support anti Americans instead. 3. Don’t believe American lies about freedom, they’ll just watch you die on tv in the streets then go to Starbucks for another DC round table.
Civil war is inevitable. There’s nothing of the present US Presidency office that needs to be saved, since it’ll be either 100% reconstructed later, or it will never be reconstructed and will remain under the Left’s control for another 500-1000 years.
DNW — unfortunately the guys who would be harmed would be the good guys – our volunteer military, and not the preening, self-absorbed phony and his groupies in the White House. They don’t deserve to be sacrifices to expose Obama’s vanity. Not that it would work anyway.
If the entire fleet that he’s ordered to the region were sunk and destroyed because of his dithering and indecision, the media would be outraged and demand heads roll for embarrassing BO and failing to carry out the mission. The dead and wounded would be mere props to the central story that BO was left with a weakened, insubordinate military, victims of a GOP forced sequestration, and one filled with racial disdain for a black commander and chief who is so much smarter than them.
If there is one thing that can be predicted at the end of this situation, there’s nothing, no matter how monumentally incompetent, wreckless, or stupid that the MSM will so much as hint that their petulant little boy had anything hand in screwing up. He’ll be made into a victim of something himself, the focus of unprecedented sympathy for whatever disaster he’s not responsible for.
“… as an example Michael Moore and his infamous remarks after 9/11 expressing exasperation, or something like it, that it was not the rubes in the flyover country who were the direct focus of Al Qaeda’s homicidal successes.”
It did not take 9/11 for we rubes in flyover country to realize what the elitists in the coast thought of us or how much they wished we would simply die and blow away. The loathing is returned in spades and Reggie Love is not welcome to play.
“If we are to take action, it should be robust enough to seriously degrade Assad’s military capabilities and to beef up aid to the FSA. That could lead to two things:
1. New respect for the U.S. and POTUS. or 2. A wider war.”
Unless the politcal whores and a majority of the public are solidly in favor of killing literally everyone who refuses to totally surrender, a wider war is futile. Either go all the way or stay home.
parker,
What you say goes to my point.
In a healthy leader-follower relationship, the follower has internalized the same social norms, values, and purpose that the leader has internalized. They’re a team. In other words, the interests of leader and follower are on the same page. The private and the sergeant have the same social goals as their lieutenant. They follow because it’s in their interest to be led.
If properly led by the US President, the free world ought to be jumping when the US President says jump. But on Obama’s watch, the working relationship between US President and the free world has broken down.
Any functional social unit — the ‘free world’ version of the international community qualifies — requires order with enforced norms and values. Order can be in different forms; even dogmatic libertarians accept that a version of social order is necessary. When any social unit lacks leadership that can enforce order and organize collective action, then it becomes anomic. An anomic social unit becomes chaotic and dysfunctional. It internally estranges, balkanizes, and atomizes. It breaks down and collapses.
As much as anything else, that’s the phenomenon we are seeing with Obama’s missteps with the Syria dilemma. A hegemonic order of independent nations that has always relied on American leadership for solidarity has been infected by poor American leadership.
Setting aside the merits of Obama’s proposal, the struggle of the US to enforce norms and values and organize collective action in the international community is very worrying.
sdferr,
There’s nothing wrong with 18th and 19th century Constitutional scholarship. It is relevant and worth citing on this issue. For example, this is a reference from a paper I wrote on the Iraq mission:
http://law.newark.rutgers.edu/files/u/Appbrieffinalfinaltext.pdf
However, if your intent is a general call to action to advocate to government officials about fixing current US legal-policy practice regarding war and the military, then you ought to at least be grounded in 20th century operative norms. It’s plausible that 21st century practice can be rolled back that far. A roll back to the 19th century, however, is probably not a realistic goal.
Basically, when a mad dog is leader of the pack, the entire pack goes mad with rabies eventually.