Idealogical consistency is admirable, political expediency-- not so much. McCain, a decorated veteran, has supported military action under both Republican and Democratic administrations. The Pauls, father and son, have been as forthright in opposing intervention.
Progressives have been challenged. Many oppose bombing as they have opposed other uses of force. While others, including the President, are propelled by concern over the flaunting of the international ban on the use of chemical weapons. But in a corollary to Obama's cost benefit analysis based foreign policy, progressives understand another mercantile concept, you break it, you own it. Last night the president made clear that air strikes would have a limited objective, with responsibility for Syria remaining with Syrians.
Republican chicken hawks are flying in circles. Hatred of the president is the only air beneath their wings. Supporters of unlimited warfare in Iraq, where weapons of mass destruction were an illusion, stridently oppose limited bombings in Syrian, where WMD's are a harsh, deadly reality.
If they oppose a military solution, then clearly these Republicans must support a diplomatic resolution. Again, not so much. They condemn Obama for considering a Russian proposal, which, if sincere and successful, would place Syrian chemical weapons under international control. The rub is not the terms of a possible deal, but that it is a Putin proposal. "We are allowing Russia to dictate American foreign policy," they shout on Fox. Who else? Syria is a Russian client state. Short of pounding Assad in to submission, the only path to the bargaining table is Russian pressure.
Chicken hawks are pooping all over themselves. Hopefully, the smell of mendacity will awaken the electorate.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Sunday, September 1, 2013
The Obama Doctrine
Republicans savage Obama's foreign policy as feckless and without structure. They are wrong. Those lovers of business, fail to recognize the application of cost/benefit analysis.
Republicans derided Obama for "leading from behind" in Libya. In b-school Libya would be a triumph. The objectives of regime change and a more friendly government were achieved at little cost and with almost no risk. It is as if GM developed a best selling car with partners and subcontractors bearing all development costs.
Apply those same principles to Republican foreign policy. When performing a cost benefit analysis it is not enough to look at the hoped for best case benefit. The cost, particularly in a worst case scenario, must be quantified. The difficulties experienced in Iraq and Afghanistan were well within the parameters of a worst cast scenario. Under the Obama doctrine we would not have invaded Iraq, and perhaps, would have also avoided the quagmire in Afghanistan.
Syria presents a difficult case precisely because it is not like Libya. Gaddafi had limited support within Libya, and fearing a coup, had weakened and hamstrung the military. Some opposition elements had Western leanings.
Assad has solid support from a portion of the population, and from many in the elite class. The military is modern. Imposing a Libya style no fly zone could result in substantial loss of lives and planes. The opposition is riddled with extremists. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. Caution is prudent. Some strike will be made to support the universal ban on the use of chemical weapons. But beyond that, under the Obama doctrine, limited resources will be committed until conditions warrant an investment.
Republicans derided Obama for "leading from behind" in Libya. In b-school Libya would be a triumph. The objectives of regime change and a more friendly government were achieved at little cost and with almost no risk. It is as if GM developed a best selling car with partners and subcontractors bearing all development costs.
Apply those same principles to Republican foreign policy. When performing a cost benefit analysis it is not enough to look at the hoped for best case benefit. The cost, particularly in a worst case scenario, must be quantified. The difficulties experienced in Iraq and Afghanistan were well within the parameters of a worst cast scenario. Under the Obama doctrine we would not have invaded Iraq, and perhaps, would have also avoided the quagmire in Afghanistan.
Syria presents a difficult case precisely because it is not like Libya. Gaddafi had limited support within Libya, and fearing a coup, had weakened and hamstrung the military. Some opposition elements had Western leanings.
Assad has solid support from a portion of the population, and from many in the elite class. The military is modern. Imposing a Libya style no fly zone could result in substantial loss of lives and planes. The opposition is riddled with extremists. The enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. Caution is prudent. Some strike will be made to support the universal ban on the use of chemical weapons. But beyond that, under the Obama doctrine, limited resources will be committed until conditions warrant an investment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)