Syria - seen from US press

The White House keeps beating the drums of war but they're beaten

White House insists it may strike Syria without congressional approval

The White House insisted Monday that it was legally able to launch a strike on Syria without congressional approval even as it intensified its courting of lawmakers to support military action

RT,

26 January, 2013, 15.27 EST (07.27 NZT)

White House counsel Kathryn Ruemmler told the New York Times that a strike would be lawful under both domestic and international law. She told the paper that the president could strike because of the “important national interests” surrounding the use of chemical weapons, even without Congress or United Nations approval.

Ruemmler contended that while the Syria situation “may not fit under a traditionally recognized legal basis under international law,” it would nevertheless be “justified and legitimate.”

“The president believed that it was important to enhance the legitimacy of any action that would be taken by the executive,” Ruemmler added, “to seek Congressional approval of that action and have it be seen, again as a matter of legitimacy both domestically and internationally, that there was a unified American response to the horrendous violation of the international norm against chemical weapons use.”

White House Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken later on Friday told reporters he “didn’t speak very artfully” when he said last week it was neither the “desire” nor the “intention” of President Obama to pursue a strike absent authorization.

“The president — it is clearly his desire and intent to secure the support of Congress for this action, but I don't want to get into any hypotheticals of what will or will not happen after the vote,” he said.

White House press secretary Jay Carney also stressed that a strike would be a “legitimate response” to chemical weapons use.

The posturing comes as officials say that the president's threat of using military force has begun to pay dividends. Earlier in the day, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem said his country would consider a deal to put its chemical weapons under international control in a bid to avert a military strike.

“It is precisely because of this very public discussion and presentation of evidence that we're engaged in, and because of the accumulating international support for action, that the pressure that all of that has brought to bear on Assad,” Carney said.

John Kerry Pounded With "Where's The Evidence?" Questions At Press Conference

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Vnq450h6_oE

The President and Syria: Actions Speak Louder Than Words

The vast majority of the United States opposes intervention in Syria. The opposition is consistent across partisan segments: Democrats, Republicans and independents all are against a military strike on Syria.

ABC News,

9 September, 2013

OPINION

And this is true even though 80 percent of the public knows that chemical weapons were used in Syria. So it is not a lack of information on that front that is behind the opposition.

As President Obama gets prepared to deliver an address to the nation to try to “sell” the idea of intervening in Syria, the question becomes, can he move public opinion in favor of intervention. Past history shows it will be extremely hard to do, if not impossible.

White House communications folks, speechwriters and presidential advisers love to put tremendous stock in the ability of presidents to move public opinion with “big” speeches. They love to raise the stakes and try to convince the media that these speeches are integral to leading the public on an issue.

But data show little impact on the public’s views of policies or presidents from these addresses.

I have written before that if you take a look at polling data surrounding State of the Union addresses in the past 50 years, it shows little to no impact on views of the public. For the past seven presidents, where decent polling data is available, none was able to move the public in any real way.

Even looking at the speeches of the “Great Communicator” show that President Reagan was unable to seriously alter public opinion through “big” speeches.

Specifically, recent White House addresses that tried to move the country in favor of a war or military intervention have been universally unsuccessful. Once the country is negative on our using the military to accomplish a policy goal, the minds of the public are very difficult to change.

This is true for President Johnson’s speeches on Vietnam, President Clinton’s address on Bosnia and President George W. Bush’s speeches on Iraq. All were unable to change the trajectory of the public on these conflicts over time. Let me say that very clearly. No modern president with a speech has been able to alter public opinion significantly concerning military action.

Will President Obama be able to go against history and move Americans to support Syrian intervention? It is remotely possible, but highly unlikely.

First, as mentioned, modern history shows presidents have met with very little success in moving the country to support an unpopular cause.

Second, after thousands of lives have been lost and more than a trillion dollars was spent in spent in the past 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan, the country has war- and crisis-fatigue. We are tired and exhausted from wars that had very little benefit to our country, or to the world in general.

Third, trust in the government’s ability to tell us the truth and do a job effectively is at an all-time low. As happens in our own personal relationships, once trust has been broken, it is nearly impossible to convince someone that things are different through words alone.

It takes a series of actions that rebuild trust before we will go along with the words of a person, or even a president.

Maybe the White House’s goal in this isn’t to change the minds of millions of Americans, but rather to change the minds of 535 members of Congress in the Senate and the House, so they will pass the president’s resolution approving military engagement in Syria. That may be doable, but still very hard.

The Congress, many of whom face re-election and have heard the overwhelming voices of citizens opposed to Syria involvement, is not likely to be swayed by the president’s address.

I would suggest the president take a moment, understand that maybe the country knows best at this time, and try again and work out a negotiated settlement. It is never good politics or policy to start from a place that a majority of the country is wrong.

For me, I would rather trust the combined wisdom of 300 million Americans rather than a few folks in Washington.

Ignore the communications folks. This isn’t a marketing problem. It is a substantive policy problem and it is about rebuilding trust through actions and not words.

When people stop going to a restaurant because they don’t like the food or trust that is healthy, changing the color of the menus, altering the decor and purchasing more advertising isn’t going to help. Time to address a more fundamental problem.

There you have it.

Harry Reid Delays Syria Test Vote In Senate

President Obama on Monday took a sharp turn away from his "red line" threat to Syria on the eve of taking his case to the American people, saying in an interview with Fox News that he's open to negotiations on an alternative plan that could avert a military strike.

Huffington Post,

9 September, 2013

WASHINGTON — The Senate is delaying a test vote on authorizing U.S. military strikes against Syria.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says it wouldn't be beneficial to hold the vote while international discussions continue regarding Syria's use of chemical weapons.

Reid says it's not important to, quote, "see how fast we can do this." He adds, "We have to see how well we can do this."

Reid's action Monday comes amid increased opposition in the Senate to a U.S. military intervention in Syria.

The Nevada Democrat had planned a full Senate vote Wednesday. It's unclear when that might happen now.

Obama backs off 'red line,' opens door to 'diplomatic track' on Syria

President Obama on Monday took a sharp turn away from his "red line" threat to Syria on the eve of taking his case to the American people, saying in an interview with Fox News that he's open to negotiations on an alternative plan that could avert a military strike.

Fox News,

9 September, 2013

The president was responding to a proposal, formally put forward by the Russians, to have the Assad regime turn over its chemical weapons to international control.

"We will pursue this diplomatic track," Obama told Fox News. "I fervently hope that this can be resolved in a non-military way."

The president, while saying his advisers would "run to ground" that proposal, indicated he still wants Congress to debate a resolution to authorize a strike against Syria. "I think it is important for us not to let the pedal off the metal when it comes to making sure they understand we mean what we say," Obama said.

But the president's decision to pursue the diplomatic track is a departure from his decision more than a week ago to pursue a military strike. And it could bring the temperature down a notch in the ongoing stand-off between his administration and the Assad government.

The president's comments come after a proposal to have the Syrian government relinquish control of its stockpile quickly caught fire in the international community and in Washington.

Secretary of State John Kerry touched off the discussion with an off-hand remark that Syria could only avert military action if it turned over its weapons within a week.

Kerry and his aides afterward claimed the secretary was merely making a "rhetorical" point. But Russia's foreign minister formally proposed the idea to Syria, and the Assad government said it welcomed the plan.

As the United Nations secretary-general and several U.S. allies gravitated toward the proposal, the Obama administration conceded that it would seriously consider it.

Obama went further in his interview with Fox News.

"I welcome the possibility of the development," he said. "We should explore and exhaust all avenues of diplomatic resolution to this."

He said the U.S. should be able to get a "fairly rapid sense" of how serious the proposal is. "We are going to be immediately talking to the Russians and looking for some actual language they might be proposing," he said.

But Obama said it's important to "keep the pressure on." Roughly quoting the late President Ronald Reagan, he said: "It's not enough just to trust. I think we're going to have to verify."

The president said the idea of negotiating this kind of solution is "something that is not new."

The president also brushed off comments made earlier by Bashar Assad in which he threatened that there could be "repercussions" if the U.S. attacks.

Assad's military capabilities are "not significant relative to the U.S. military," Obama said.

The interview comes as Obama prepares to address the nation from the White House on Tuesday night -- as national polling shows Americans are increasingly opposed to U.S. military action in that country's civil war.

A new Fox News Poll shows that public disapproval of Obama's handling of Syria has jumped from 40 percent to 60 percent. It also found just 36 percent favor using force to punish Syria for using chemical weapons; 61 percent oppose taking that step.

"Right now, the American people are not persuaded," Obama acknowledged. "Right now, members of Congress who are just getting back still have questions."

With the proposal so unpopular in the polls, Obama is having a difficult time selling the idea of a strike to Congress. A Senate test vote is teed up as early as Wednesday, but the White House is struggling to corral the 60 votes that likely will be necessary to advance it.

The administration faces an even tougher time in the Republican-controlled House.

Obama stressed in the interview that the situation in Syria is "difficult," but the U.S. was looking at taking action because chemical weapons -- which the administration accuses the Assad regime of using -- are "indiscriminate." But he also said he understands Americans' skepticism over U.S. involvement.

"The American people are right not to want to have us entangled in a sectarian civil war inside of Syria," he said.