The Cameron Trap: Obama’s Lesson from the British Vote

[KoKo]

Humiliation is tied to pride. Parliament’s anger had a great deal to do with process; as John Cassidy has written, it took a small rebellion on the part of the public to remind the Prime Minister that he couldn’t just rush off to war, shouting vague explanations over his shoulder as he went. Cameron’s government had first approached Parliament with the sense that the decision had been made, that they were there just to approve, that there was no need to wait for the inspectors, just for the Prime Minister to get off the phone with Obama; in his speech to the House of Commons before the vote, Cameron said that he’d had to explain to Obama why he had even called them back at all. (He said he’d told the President that it was because of “the damage done to public confidence by Iraq.”)

---------

Cameron’s failure in Parliament makes getting a vote from Congress more necessary—precisely because it might fail. The British vote removes any plausible claim that the Administration can assume consent—that the proper reaction to the horror in Syria is so obvious, so rooted in “norms” that one needn’t even ask. The grounds in international law for military action are shaky, though. Neither the Arab League nor the Security Council are giving legal cover. Now there is not even an ersatz consensus of allies. That isn’t to say that lone, noble stands are never right; but it should preclude a half-thought-out military action with little public support that dodges America’s political processes and institutions.

Cameron, speaking to Parliament, said that bombing Syria wouldn’t be about “taking sides,” or régime change,” or “even about working more closely with the opposition”—just “our response to a war crime—nothing else.” Neither he nor Obama has explained how to enforce that “nothing else” clause. What’s the next step, when Assad reacts, and the next after that? Obama, if anything, was more vague in an interview on PBS:

And if, in fact, we can take limited, tailored approaches, not getting drawn into a long conflict, not a repetition of, you know, Iraq, which I know a lot of people are worried about - but if we are saying in a clear and decisive but very limited way, we send a shot across the bow saying, stop doing this, that can have a positive impact on our national security over the long term, and may have a positive impact on our national security over the long term and may have a positive impact in the sense that chemical weapons are not used again on innocent civilians.

“Tailored approaches” seems to be the new “surgical strikes” (the worst euphemisms are those that involve bombs). As for that “shot across the bow”—where is it meant to land?

Obama may take the British vote as proof that he can’t risk putting himself in Cameron’s position. But facing Congress after things don’t go according to plan—if there even is a plan—would be all the more humiliating. Obama can’t win this the way that Cameron lost it: by talking as though he is the only one acting according to principle, and that those who disagree just haven’t seen enough pictures of the effects of chemical weapons. There are principles at work in wondering whether something that feels satisfying but causes more death and disorder is right, too. The real Cameron trap is thinking that a leader can go to war personally and apolitically, without having a good answer when asked what’s supposed to happen after the missiles are fired. Does the President get that?

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2013/08/british-vote-on-syria-obama-lesson.html

[MADem]

1. Will Parliament revisit once they've seen the UN report, though, that is the question. nt

[KoKo]

3. From the looks of that report...it's pretty skimpy evidence, though. (EDITED)

Sorry...thought you meant the Intelligence Report. Kerry made it pretty clear that the UN report meant little because he says they can't determine who did the gassing. Meaning that the SigNet Intel Report that was released yesterday pins it on ASSAD..do he kind of fluffed off anything from UN making a difference.

Don't know if it would make a difference with Cameron, either..

[MADem]

4. The report hasn't been released yet.

I don't know how "skimpy" it is or isn't.

All I know is that the UN Secretary General HIMSELF took the time to brief key government ambassadors on the initial impressions of the inspection team.

The inspection team only left Damascus a few hours ago.

[KoKo]

13. I just edited to you above. I thought you meant the SigNet report.

So...I edited and added to my reply to you above.

[MADem]

15. RE: your edited remarks.

The UN could determine who used the weapons--but that's not their charge.

They have said they won't investigate in that fashion and they didn't.

We now decisively know that chemical weapons were used, that much, they have already revealed (just now, a few moments ago, on the wires--no doubt Ban Ki Moon's brief to the key ambassadors revealed this fact earlier, as well).

We also know that the neighborhood where they were used in this latest incident was completely surrounded by Syrian military forces, was subjected to heavy shelling to break windows in the still (no wind) of the night, and this shelling was followed by gas delivered by rockets that the Syrian rebels:

a) Do not have in their arsenals;
b) Were not positioned to deliver (unless they were standing right smack dab in the middle of Maher al-Assad's RG units--and that's a bit unlikely, at best).

It just doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what happened.

[KoKo]

5. And..this: "BBC News uses 'Iraq photo to illustrate Syrian massacre'"

(This sounds like sloppy work by BBC...but, as with Iraq we know that misinformation can be used for propaganda. Do we know that those videos of gassing of children are real? I assume some of them are...but, when the numbers of gassed and dead reported have changed...one does wonder if we are getting verified information. I don't want Obama & Dems caught up in some situation where contradictory information comes out ...AFTER he does his surgical strikes.)

---------
BBC News uses 'Iraq photo to illustrate Syrian massacre'
The BBC is facing criticism after it accidentally used a picture taken in Iraq in 2003 to illustrate the senseless massacre of children in Syria.



Photographer Marco di Lauro said he nearly “fell off his chair” when he saw the image being used, and said he was “astonished” at the failure of the corporation to check their sources.

The picture, which was actually taken on March 27, 2003, shows a young Iraqi child jumping over dozens of white body bags containing skeletons found in a desert south of Baghdad.

It was posted on the BBC news website today under the heading “Syria massacre in Houla condemned as outrage grows”.

The caption states the photograph was provided by an activist and cannot be independently verified, but says it is “believed to show the bodies of children in Houla awaiting burial”.

A BBC spokesman said the image has now been taken down.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9293620/BBC-News-uses-Iraq-photo-to-illustrate-Syrian-massacre.html

[MADem]

9. What does that "prove" though? That an editor got lazy...

And no surprise, the Torygraph--your source--would be eager to slam the "liberal" (to their mind) BBC at every opportunity.

Are you seriously suggesting that an international team of doctors for Medicines sans Frontieres are making shit up?

Also--apparently the UN Team out of Syria IS saying that chemical weapons were used, per the latest reports over the wires--so the suggestion that those kids weren't gassed is just Pootie-esque spin.

[KoKo]

12. I didn't say that children and adults weren't gassed...but the numbers from

Doctors without Borders differed from what Kerry reported. Kerry said he had new information in the SigNet report that more than doubled the numbers of gassed.

I said that we need to be careful to make sure we don't get into this based on info that we know can be sloppy or even not true like "Yellow Cake, Aluminum Tubes and Saddam pulling babies off incubators put out there by some Saudi Princess.

The rush to do something NOW...with Obama going pretty much alone without time to make sure that all info is legit could cause him trouble if info comes out later that shows some exaggeration. That's what I'm saying.

That photo that BBC sloppily put up would certainly lead those who saw it before it was taken down to feel that it was a real photo of mass death of children. There may be other misinfo out there that will take awhile to sort out.

[MADem]

18. The French--the liberal, socialist, cheeseburger loving President Hollande, is outraged.

He's sent ships and aircraft, and he's ready to go.

He knows this isn't "yellow cake." Anyone who looks at what happened knows.

All you have to do is look at the videos of the MSF doctors trying to save those people. They aren't "making it up." They can tell you when they were filmed, that they weren't 'staged' in any way. That's not "vials" or "princesses."

Warning--disturbing images:

Published on Aug 24, 2013
Medecins Sans Frontieres says hospitals it supports in Syria treated about 3,600 patients with "neurotoxic symptoms", of whom 355 have died.

It said the patients had arrived in three hospitals in the Damascus governorate on 21 August - when opposition activists say chemical attacks were launched against rebels....

This is not the only time chemical weapons have been deployed in Syria--not by a long shot. There have been many other instances where they've been deployed. This was just the most deadly of the attacks. Richard Engel believes this particular attack was retaliatory, owing to an assassination attempt against al-Assad, and I think he might be right on that score:

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/28/20231217-assad-assassination-attempt-may-have-prompted-chemical-weapons-strike?lite

[dipsydoodle]

7. Nope

There was to have been another debate but that hax been scrubbed. Cameron made a definitive statement - there will be no military involvement by the UK.

[malaise]

2. MUST READ

Rec

[HooptieWagon]

6. The last anti-war parliment vote was in 1787.

That indicates Obama has a very weak case.

[dipsydoodle]

8. Case of wine maybe

but sfa else.

[JayhawkSD]

10. I don't think Obama takes any lesson from the British

"Cameron’s failure in Parliament makes getting a vote from Congress more necessary—precisely because it might fail. The British vote removes any plausible claim that the Administration can assume consent"

What I take from Obama's speeches is not that he assume's Congressional assent, but that he regards it as irrelevant.

He has a legal team drawing up "a legal brief" for him, which sounds awfully familiar. I hope none of them is named Yoo.

He's citing Libya as a precedent, which is a nice trick. "I did it before and got away with it so..."

[bahrbearian]

16. I don't think Obama has taken any lessons from Chimpy either.

[jsr]

11. Yeah.

[Jefferson23]

14. Highly recommend. n/t

[gulliver]

17. Obama "gets it"

Cameron's humiliation could actually be good for Obama. The second mouse gets the cheese. I think Obama will seek Congressional consultation if not outright approval. Then, whether he decides to strike Assad or not, he will be successful.