In the Syrian crisis, 6 in 10 Americans oppose airstrikes, according to the poll, with similar majorities saying they fear military action could enmesh the United States in another long engagement in the Middle East and would increase the terrorist threat to Americans.
But the antipathy to foreign engagement extends beyond the current crisis. Sixty-two percent of the people polled said the United States should not take a leading role in trying to solve foreign conflicts, while only 34 percent said it should. In April 2003, a month after American troops marched into Iraq, 48 percent favored a leading role, while 43 percent opposed it.
When asked whether the United States should intervene to turn dictatorships into democracies, 72 percent said no while only 15 percent said yes. That is the highest level of opposition in a decade of polling on this question. At the start of the Iraq war, 48 percent favored staying out and 29 percent favored getting involved.
“A lot of people bought the idea that if we create democracy in the Middle East, the terrorists would stop coming,” said Walter Russell Mead, a professor of humanities and foreign policy at Bard College. “But that conflation has disappeared, and that makes it harder to gin up the popular support for foreign military intervention.”
For Mr. Obama, who has repeatedly ruled out sending troops to Syria and promised a “limited, tailored” operation, the findings reinforce his failure so far to make his case to the American public, which has seemed as skeptical as some of the nation’s allies.
Nearly 80 percent of those surveyed said the Obama administration had not clearly explained its objectives in Syria, while 69 percent said Mr. Obama should not go ahead with a strike without Congressional authorization. Fifty-six percent of people said they disapproved of how the president has handled Syria, while 33 percent approved.
Monday 9 September, 2013, was the worst day for US and wider Western diplomacy since records began...And following a bit on John Kerry's bumbling statements about Assad giving up his WMD, Crawford continues:
Chemical weapons are relatively easy to make and store (and fire), but much harder to dismantle safely. The chemicals themselves are fiendishly dangerous and need to be destroyed with specialist equipment without creating environmental hazards. Plus the explosive part of the delivery shell needs careful handling. Destroying CW stocks is therefore a complex and expensive operation, even under calm conditions. Both the United States and Russia have both heavily failed to meet internationally agreed deadlines for destroying their massive Cold War legacy chemical weapons stocks.It's been a whirlwind couple of days, that's for sure.
There is no precedent for attempting anything like this in a country wracked by civil war. It just can’t happen. No Syrian chemical weapons will be destroyed or "handed over" quickly.
What could be worse for America's standing in the world than a Congress refusing to support a President's proposal for military action against a rogue regime that used WMD? Here's one idea: A U.S. President letting that rogue be rescued from military punishment by the country that has protected the rogue all along.Continue reading.
That's where President Obama now finds himself on Syria after he embraced Russian President Vladimir Putin's offer to take custody of Bashar Assad's chemical weapons. The move may rescue Mr. Obama and Congress from the political agony of a vote on a resolution to authorize a military strike on Syria. But the diplomatic souk is now open, and Mr. Obama has turned himself into one of the junior camel traders.
What a fiasco. Secretary of State John Kerry, of all people, first floated this escape route for Assad on Monday in Europe where he was supposed to be rallying diplomatic support for a strike. The remark appeared to be off-the-cuff, but with Mr. Kerry and this Administration you never know. In any case before Mr. Kerry's plane had landed in the U.S., Russia's foreign minister had leapt on the idea and proposed to take custody of Assad's chemical arsenal to forestall U.S. military action.
The White House should have rebuffed the offer given Russia's long protection of Assad at the United Nations—a fact noted with scorn on Monday by Mr. Obama's national security adviser Susan Rice. Instead Mr. Obama endorsed the Russian gambit as what "could potentially be a significant breakthrough." The Senate immediately called off its Wednesday vote on the military resolution. By Tuesday Assad had accepted the offer that he hopes will spare him from a military strike.
France will press for a U.N. Security Council resolution supposedly for U.N. inspectors to supervise the dismantling of Syria's stockpiles, though Russia will no doubt try to put itself in the lead inspecting role. On Tuesday Russia was even objecting to a French draft that would blame the Syrian government for using chemical weapons. Mr. Putin also insisted the U.S. must first disavow any military action in Syria, even as he and Iran make no such pledge.
On second thought, fiasco is too kind for this spectacle. Russia has publicly supported Assad's denials that he used sarin gas, but we are now supposed to believe it will thoroughly scrub Syria of those weapons. We are also supposed to believe Assad will come clean about the weapons he has long denied having and still denies using.
Oh, and we can be confident of this because U.N. or Russian inspectors or someone will be able to locate the entire chemical arsenal, pack up arms that require enormous care in transport, and then monitor future compliance in the continuing war zone that is Syria.
Even if you believe this will happen, or is even possible, Assad will emerge without punishment for having used chemical weapons. He can also be confident that there will be no future Western military action against him. Mr. Obama won't risk another ramp-up to war given the opposition at home and abroad to this effort.
Oh, and we can be confident of this because U.N. or Russian inspectors or someone will be able to locate the entire chemical arsenal, pack up arms that require enormous care in transport, and then monitor future compliance in the continuing war zone that is Syria.
Even if you believe this will happen, or is even possible, Assad will emerge without punishment for having used chemical weapons. He can also be confident that there will be no future Western military action against him. Mr. Obama won't risk another ramp-up to war given the opposition at home and abroad to this effort.
Assad will also know he can unleash his conventional forces anew against the rebels, and Iran and Russia will know they can arm him with impunity. The rebels had better brace themselves for a renewed assault. At the very least, Mr. Obama should compensate for his diplomatic surrender by finally following through on his June promise to arm and train the moderate Free Syrian Army. Otherwise he runs the risk of facilitating an Assad-Iran-Russian triumph.
A weak and inconstant U.S. President has been maneuvered by America's enemies into claiming that a defeat for his Syria policy is really a triumph...And:
America's friends and foes around the world will recalculate the risks ahead in the 40 dangerous months left of this unserious Presidency.An utterly unbelievable disaster. What's not unbelievable is the total mendacity of the Obama operatives in the leftist press. I guess if anyone could wring a "victory" from the jaws of defeat it's the king of the juicebox mafia, Ezra Klein. As I tweeted:
.@RSMcCain Speaking of shameless, there's no #Obama clusterf-k that leftist tool @EzraKlein won't defend, even #Syria http://t.co/kVqPkFU6Cm
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) September 10, 2013
A blurry image of #Weiner saying goodbye with his middle finger as he drives off from HQ tonight. cc: @BuzzFeedAndrew pic.twitter.com/8fKnA5yLLz
— Kate Rose (@KateRoseMe) September 11, 2013
A Democratic strategist who works closely with the White House, and who requested anonymity to avoid political retribution, told me, "This has been one of the most humiliating episodes in presidential history."
Let’s get one thing clear: President Barack Obama’s upcoming media blitz, to include interviews on six television networks and a primetime Oval Office address, is not going to rally the public behind U.S.-led airstrikes in Syria.He ain't gonna to change jack.
It’s hard to fault Obama for trying. The belief in the dominant president who moves the country and the government through strong leadership has deep roots in American political culture. We frequently attribute extraordinary persuasiveness to the chief executives Americans revere most — from George Washington and Abraham Lincoln to Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. These past masters of the bully pulpit moved the public when they needed to do so. Or did they?
Actually, we know better. Even great communicators typically failed to move the public to support their initiatives. Bill Clinton, “the great explainer,” could not win public backing for his economic stimulus bill or his cornerstone proposal for reforming the health-care system. Nor did the public (or congressional Republicans) support his 1999 bombing in the Balkans.
The public moved against increased defense spending as soon as Reagan took the oath of office, and he never achieved even plurality support for his high-priority policy of aiding the Contras in Nicaragua. Nor could he convince the public to support limiting domestic policy expenditures or environmental regulations. Rescuing Americans in Grenada was an easier sell.
World War II posed the greatest crisis of the twentieth century. FDR, the century’s supreme politician, was continually frustrated in his efforts to convince Americans to rearm and aid their allies against Adolf Hitler’s onslaught. It took events in Europe and then Pearl Harbor, not a fireside chat, to change voters’ minds. The president’s plan to “pack” the Supreme Court split the Democratic Party, gave birth to the Conservative Coalition, and effectively ended the New Deal.
These presidents were not stymied in their efforts to persuade the public because they avoided engaging the public, framed their positions ineffectively, or articulated their views in unappealing terms. They failed because of the nature of public opinion and the president’s communication environment.
The president faces strong competition for the public’s attention, and most people are not attentive to him. Barely a tenth of the population watched Obama’s 2013 State of the Union address. Moreover, many people who do pay attention miss the president’s points, and the less people know, the more confidence they have in their pre-existing beliefs and resist factual information. A desire to avoid risk and distrust of government make people wary of policy initiatives, especially when they are complex and their consequences are uncertain, as is the case with virtually every proposal for a major shift in public policy and undoubtedly is the case of military action against Syria.
What’s more, the opposition gets to have its say. Committed, well-organized, and well-funded opponents can undermine the White House’s efforts to write its own narrative and place the president’s performance in a favorable light. Republicans are not accepting the White House view that attacking Syria will weaken Assad and deter his use of chemical weapons. Then there’s partisanship, which is especially likely to bias perceptions, interpretations, and responses to the president. Most people seek out information confirming their opinions and ignore or reject arguments that contradict their predispositions.
The deep polarization of today’s politics only exacerbates these tendencies. Why should we be surprised that Republicans are less likely than Democrats to support military actions against Syria? Partisanship trumps the party’s traditional hawkish outlook on world affairs. Meanwhile, the Internet, cable television, and talk radio amplify the strident differences among partisan elites and facilitate the public’s selective exposure to information through “narrowcasting” to particular audiences.
Is there any reason to think Syria is different? One might think that opinion about military action against Syria would be fluid because the issue is relatively new. The president would be wise to couch his presentation in terms of a unique situation posing a grave threat to the nation’s security rather than the general international responsibilities of a humane superpower. The latter frame activates opinions that counsel against taking action.
Nevertheless, the president is unlikely to change many opinions...
Do you ever get the idea that this nation is not only in decline but completely rudderless under the Obama administration? Well, it's not really rudderless; it only appears rudderless because Obama isn't pursuing the same goals as past presidents.Yes, elsewhere scheming the destruction of America both home and abroad.
Let's first concede that Obama expressly admitted his goal of fundamentally changing the nation -- an alarming thought to most patriots. Let's also acknowledge that Obama's perception of pre-Obama America is largely negative. He has made that abundantly clear during the past five years, with his incessant harping on the state of the African-American community, his articulation of class warfare themes, his virtually overt war on our domestic energy industries and his harsh criticism of American health care, the insurance industry, the "wealthy" and various other targets.
By pitting Americans against each other, he produces both the distraction and the fuel to facilitate his goal of fundamental change.
Neither he nor his like-minded leftist colleagues look to America's founding with pride. They regard America's international record as unacceptably imperialistic, and they still believe we are on the wrong side of history on civil rights and other issues.
Though it has taken some a long while to come to terms with Obama's radicalism -- and it would be an understatement to label it as anything less -- many are finally opening their eyes to it.
Only if we fully come to grips with the sincerity of Obama's goal of fundamental transformation will we have the proper context within which to evaluate his policies.
By seeking transformational change, Obama does not mean that he wants to return unemployment and economic growth to their traditional levels. He doesn't mean that he wants to ensure that America remains the world's lone superpower, committed to defending itself and its allies and to opposing radical jihadis in the war on terror.
He has shown that he doesn't necessarily even share these domestic and foreign policy goals or that if he does, they are far down on his list of priorities.
Obama cannot be completely candid about his goals, because even today, most Americans would probably oppose his ideas if they fully understood them. He gives us many hints about where he's ultimately headed, but he also remains vague and cloaks his goals in euphemisms of "fairness" and "equality," by which he means something entirely different from America's traditional commitment to equality of opportunity and equality under the law. He means moving toward equality of outcomes to achieve "fairness."
If Obama were like other presidents, he would at least be alarmed by the enormousness of the national debt and the entitlements that are driving our unfunded liabilities into the stratosphere. He would be concerned that the economy has remained anemic his entire five years in office and that we're experiencing the worst recovery since World War II.
But you never hear Obama expressing genuine concern over the debt, our unfunded liabilities, our perpetual lack of growth or the explosion of our welfare and food stamp programs, which he may well regard with pride.
Why? Because his head is elsewhere.
Remember that dumb cowboy George W. Bush, who alienated all our allies and dragged us into wars of choice in the Mideast? And remember that goofball Mitt Romney, whom Joe Biden a year ago accused of wanting to go to war in Syria?Continue reading.
Both of them must be having a big laugh over the way things are going for Obama now. When I wrote last week on our bumbling Syria diplomacy, it seemed that things couldn't possibly go further downhill. Boy, was I wrong.
Last week, it seemed our only ally was France. But now the French are having second thoughts. Obama's efforts to get support at the G20 conference came to nothing. Even the pope is undercutting him.
Meanwhile, at home, polls show Americans are against a strike, and Obama is facing double-digit defections among Democrats in the Senate. The outlook for passage in the House, meanwhile, looks so bad that a resolution to authorize war may not even make it to a vote. If it's sure to fail, why force members -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- to go on record? You can bet they don't appreciate Obama putting them in this position. The Pentagon isn't happy, and even The Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates, a reliable Obama supporter, calls his policy "dumb."
Some critics are even comparing the collapse of American influence under Obama to the end of the Soviet Union. Well, that may be an exaggeration -- but Obama promised a "fundamental transformation," after all...
It is entirely understandable that Barack Obama's way of dealing with Syria in recent weeks should have elicited responses ranging from puzzlement to disgust. Even members of his own party are despairingly echoing in private the public denunciations of him as "incompetent," "bungling," "feckless," "amateurish" and "in over his head" coming from his political opponents on the right.More at that top link.
For how else to characterize a president who declares war against what he calls a great evil demanding immediate extirpation and in the next breath announces that he will postpone taking action for at least 10 days—and then goes off to play golf before embarking on a trip to another part of the world? As if this were not enough, he also assures the perpetrator of that great evil that the military action he will eventually take will last a very short time and will do hardly any damage. Unless, that is, he fails to get the unnecessary permission he has sought from Congress, in which case (according to an indiscreet member of his own staff) he might not take any military action after all.
Summing up the net effect of all this, as astute a foreign observer as Conrad Black can flatly say that, "Not since the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, and before that the fall of France in 1940, has there been so swift an erosion of the world influence of a Great Power as we are witnessing with the United States."
Yet if this is indeed the pass to which Mr. Obama has led us—and I think it is—let me suggest that it signifies not how incompetent and amateurish the president is, but how skillful. His foreign policy, far from a dismal failure, is a brilliant success as measured by what he intended all along to accomplish. The accomplishment would not have been possible if the intention had been too obvious. The skill lies in how effectively he has used rhetorical tricks to disguise it...
Today, we mourn the loss of Marie Elizabeth Johnson, an Irvine High School student whose life was cut tragically short as the result of a car accident along Santiago Canyon Road. Lizzie, as she was known to friends, would have begun her junior year on Tuesday. At 16 years old, her life was just beginning, and now we are left to grieve and cope with a loss that is difficult to comprehend.Needless to say I'm pretty upset with this. But talking to my son he said he wasn't surprised because he knows a lot of kids at his school who are running on the wrong side of the law, drinking and doing other things. My son's a good kid, thank goodness. He keeps safe. Plus, we keep good tabs on him and his friends, and I'm almost always warning him about doing drugs or drinking alcohol. He's a licensed driver now. You can't be too careful.
To assist our students and staff, the Irvine Unified School District will dispatch additional counseling support to Irvine High for as long as there is a need. These professionals, including counselors, guidance assistants and psychologists, will specifically reach out to friends and classmates, but they will also be available to anyone who may need extra support. Additionally, Irvine High will open up a space for students who wish to speak with a counselor or share their feelings in writing.
Above all, at this difficult hour, our thoughts and prayers are with Lizzie’s family, friends and loved ones.
WASHINGTON — When Secretary of State John Kerry dangled for the first time on Monday actions that President Bashar al-Assad of Syria could take to avoid a military strike, it seemed an acknowledgment that Congress, America’s allies and the Russians were all looking for an off-ramp for what a week ago seemed like inevitable military action against Syria.There's more at the link. And see, "Video of the Kerry Remark Russia Seized Upon in Game of Diplomatic Chess."
The concept has taken on many permutations in the past five days, but its essence is this: force Mr. Assad to turn his huge stockpile of chemical weapons over to some kind of international control and recognize the international ban on chemical weapons. The appeal of the idea is that, if successful, it could create a far more lasting solution than a brief strike on Syria’s chemical weapons infrastructure, especially a strike that Mr. Kerry characterized Monday morning as “unbelievably small.”
Yet, experts on chemical weapons and the Syrian government said that it would be next to impossible to know with certainty where all of Mr. Assad’s sprawling, constantly moving arsenal is residing, much less who is controlling it. And flying it out of the country is not as simple as picking up nuclear components — as the United States did in Libya in late 2003 — and moving them to a well-guarded site in Tennessee.
Though Mr. Kerry also expressed skepticism that the Syrians would take up the idea, his comments were notable because as recently as the middle of last week he was not talking about any diplomatic initiatives to secure the stockpile. A proposal by Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, both junior members of the Democratic caucus, to give Mr. Assad 45 days to sign on to the Chemical Weapons Convention and begin to turn over his weapons had yet to catch Mr. Kerry’s attention.
Is this the beginning of the White House turn?Plus, here's the controversy over the "unbelievably small bit, at Politico, "John Kerry under fire for 'unbelievably small' comment." Plus, "John McCain: John Kerry ‘unbelievably unhelpful’."
At this point, it’s risky and probably futile to try to understand the ad hoc decisionmaking and zig-zagging public rhetoric of the Obama administration’s handling of Syria. But even before Barack Obama shares his latest thoughts on the crisis with the American people, in television interviews today and a speech tomorrow night, a new proposal and the administration’s eager response suggest another zig (or zag) might be coming.
Although State Department officials quickly moved to downplay Kerry’s comment, saying he was speaking extemporaneously and wasn’t making an actual proposal, the Russians leapt at the comments and offered to help Assad comply.
Six miles from downtown Pittsburgh, Sgt. Ryan Lane's youthful image is eternally captured on a banner with two American flags as its background. Dozens of the banners hang from street poles in the business district of Castle Shannon, Lane's hometown.Continue reading.
The 25-year-old, who was assigned to the 2nd Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion, 2nd Marine Division, was killed in a battle with Taliban forces in Afghanistan's Helmand province.
When he was brought home to be buried, mourners lined the streets of a neighboring community to honor him; most of them didn't know the young man whose flag-draped coffin was carried by fellow soldiers into the family church.
American soldiers are not forgotten in their communities. But they are a rapidly shrinking minority among their neighbors, because they are part of an all-volunteer military and because of our prickly political age of austerity in which base closings and consolidations have made the military a smaller component of fewer and fewer communities.
While governing elites are less and less likely to serve in the military themselves, citizens too are becoming less likely to interact with the military in their daily lives — which effectively isolates the military in American society.
The military has responded, in this time of war, by withdrawing into itself as a profession. That might allow it to maintain its fighting edge on the battlefield, but it does little good for civilian-military relations.
Follow @FireKiffin and @FIRELaneKiffin now! #FireKiffin
— Brandon Michaels Ⓜ (@BMichaelsUSC) September 9, 2013
Two games into the 2013 season, there are two words that perfectly describe the state of the USC football program.RTWT.
They are two words that echoed through the bowels of the Coliseum late Saturday night, two words chanted by thousands of voices, two words illustrating how a loyal and sunny crowd have been drenched in anger and hopelessnesss.
Lane Kiffin returned to work in front of Trojan fans for the first time this fall after being jeered into last winter, and it was as if the coach had never left.
With three hours of boos preceding the ominous late chant, Kiffin’s Trojans were poorly coached, poorly managed, and ultimately embarrassed in a 10-7 loss to Washington State.
Fire Kiffin? Everyone worried that this Trojan season would turn bad under the embattled young coach, but few could imagine it would turn this bad, this quickly.
Fire Kiffin? Even in an athletic department run by a guy who clearly doesn’t want to dirty his hands, this could still be the official beginning of the end of his stormy four-year tenure, a nail in the Kiffin.
Pat Haden and his rose-colored spectacles can’t ignore what happened on the field and in the stands in Saturday night’s home debut, and how it mirrors what has happened with Kiffin since the middle of last season. This is no longer about the smoke and mirrors of deflated footballs and phony jersey numbers. This is about reality of defeats that are embarrassing to the program’s rich tradition, a culture whose proud legacy is under the care of Haden, whose effectiveness is also now being seriously questioned.
Before this season Haden said he’s "100%" behind Kiffin, yet the coach has now lost six of his last eight games in a stretch that includes embarrassing losses to Arizona, UCLA, Georgia Tech in last year’s Sun Bowl debacle, and now, Washington State.
This was the same Washington State that had been outscored 146-22 by USC in their last three meetings, that had lost eight straight to the Trojans, that had not beaten them in the Coliseum in 13 years.
The American people do not support military action. A Reuters-Ipsos poll had support for military action at 20%, Pew at 29%. Members of Congress have been struck, in some cases shocked, by the depth of opposition from their constituents. A great nation cannot go to war—and that's what a strike on Syria, a sovereign nation, is, an act of war—without some rough unity as to the rightness of the decision. Widespread public opposition is in itself reason not to go forward.Especially the "wrong man." But RTWT.
Can the president change minds? Yes, and he'll try. But it hasn't worked so far. This thing has jelled earlier than anyone thought. More on that further down.
What are the American people thinking? Probably some variation of: Wrong time, wrong place, wrong plan, wrong man.
Twelve years of war. A sense that we're snakebit in the Mideast. Iraq and Afghanistan didn't go well, Libya is lawless. In Egypt we threw over a friend of 30 years to embrace the future. The future held the Muslim Brotherhood, unrest and a military coup. Americans have grown more hard-eyed—more bottom-line and realistic, less romantic about foreign endeavors, and more concerned about an America whose culture and infrastructure seem to be crumbling around them.
The administration has no discernible strategy. A small, limited strike will look merely symbolic, a face-saving measure. A strong, broad strike opens the possibility that the civil war will end in victory for those as bad as or worse than Assad. And time has already passed. Assad has had a chance to plan his response, and do us the kind of damage to which we would have to respond.
