Is anyone else surprised about the opposition to Syrian intervention?

[Popular Front of Judea]

I am thinking at the Establishment level, not the street. (There is little that I can see at street level.) I frankly thought it was a done deal. A reprise of of Clinton-era cruise missile diplomacy. But now there is doubt whether Obama can indeed "seal the deal". Interesting.

This appeared in the New York Times -- not the Nation:

http://i.imgur.com/zm8rlwe.jpg

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

I was genuinely surprised when it was defeated in the UK too - given the current government's approach to everything else (healthcare, education, pensions and so on) I was expecting them to ride rough-shod and all guns blazing over public opinion.

[blake 3:17]

It's one of the real contradictions of Obama. He going to close Gitmo (and didn't) and was going to go multi lateral (and hasn't on this one).

Folks are fed up with pointless war.

Talking to my mom today, she said her minister gave an anti-war against Syria talk as part of the church service. She's been thinking I'm nuts on it -- and then this dude says exactly what I've been saying. WMD? Bullshit and we all know it.

[Audeamus]

Vietnam Syndrome 2: The Iraqining. The long drawn-out conflicts the US and its allies have fought in Iraq (and Afghanistan but especially Iraq) has left a lot of people with a bad taste in their mouths regarding military intervention in the Middle East, especially over WMDs. And has left establishment figures wary as well, nobody wants to end up with Bush's poll numbers or legacy, or having clips of their war mongering played endlessly should intervention prove to be another disaster.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Lot of passive opposition at street level. I think favorable opinion to military intervention in Syria is at something like 25% or something? People won't do anything about it, just roll their eyes about another war from Obomber. The USA appears to be losing influence across the entire middle east.

[adipocere]

I personally am not terribly surprised by the establishment opposition to bombing Syria. I think politicians all over the west have become far more self-conscious about their image with regard to their constituents...I think some of it has to do with the rise of social media - politicians and media tweeting and getting instant feedback (even if it is ultimately an echo chamber - they haven't seemed to figure that out), much of it negative because of the rampant corruption they facilitate and the global economic crisis they are reigning over. But also, and possibly more importantly, the US is looking really, really bad over the NSA scandal and politicians all over the west are pissed on two fronts: they were excluded by the power elite from being in on the secret and it's diplomatically insulting.

I also think another factor, in the US, is a coordinated front of hardcore neo-liberals dressed as Tea Party Republicans with a rabid conservative base to oppose and scandalize everything Obama does. A few of these libertarian-ish Republicans are clearly preening to run for president in 2016 want to be able to say in their campaign -see I was on your side, you can trust me.

And this issue with Syria is low hanging fruit - Violent Muslims in the Middle East are what Americans and the entire west, more or less, have been obsessively conditioned to hate and fear post 9/11 - a racist trump card, really. The rebels filming their atrocities and particularity the video of that ghoul eating a dead soldier wasn't the best PR move either, you could literally feel media opinion shift overnight.

I doubt the establishment politicians harbor any real reluctance to intervene, but I think they are aware that they still can be voted out of office. It's political survival - the war profiteers are basically a small inner circle - ultimately the Obama administration is on it's way out in 2016. There is nothing to really lose by opposing him.

[RedBen]

I personally am not terribly surprised by the establishment opposition to bombing Syria. I think politicians all over the west have become far more self-conscious about their image with regard to their constituents...I think some of it has to do with the rise of social media - politicians and media tweeting and getting instant feedback (even if it is ultimately an echo chamber - they haven't seemed to figure that out), much of it negative because of the rampant corruption they facilitate and the global economic crisis they are reigning over. But also, and possibly more importantly, the US is looking really, really bad over the NSA scandal and politicians all over the west are pissed on two fronts: they were excluded by the power elite from being in on the secret and it's diplomatically insulting.

I also think another factor, in the US, is a coordinated front of hardcore neo-liberals dressed as Tea Party Republicans with a rabid conservative base to oppose and scandalize everything Obama does. A few of these libertarian-ish Republicans are clearly preening to run for president in 2016 want to be able to say in their campaign -see I was on your side, you can trust me.

And this issue with Syria is low hanging fruit - Violent Muslims in the Middle East are what Americans and the entire west, more or less, have been obsessively conditioned to hate and fear post 9/11 - a racist trump card, really. The rebels filming their atrocities and particularity the video of that ghoul eating a dead soldier wasn't the best PR move either, you could literally feel media opinion shift overnight.

I doubt the establishment politicians harbor any real reluctance to intervene, but I think they are aware that they still can be voted out of office. It's political survival - the war profiteers are basically a small inner circle - ultimately the Obama administration is on it's way out in 2016. There is nothing to really lose by opposing him.
you ain't lyin'

[Popular Front of Judea]

Going to Congress -- whatever the motivation -- is increasingly looking like a miscalculation by Obama. This week will tell how bad a miscalculation it was.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/09/politics/syria-congess-week-ahead/

So how many of you revolutionaries are contacting your Senator and Representative?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Vietnam Syndrome 2: The Iraqining.LOL, coin that shit.:lol:


The long drawn-out conflicts the US and its allies have fought in Iraq (and Afghanistan but especially Iraq) has left a lot of people with a bad taste in their mouths regarding military intervention in the Middle East, especially over WMDs. And has left establishment figures wary as well, nobody wants to end up with Bush's poll numbers or legacy, or having clips of their war mongering played endlessly should intervention prove to be another disaster.Yeah I think this has a lot to do with the lack of public support - I think Os Cangaceiros is also probably right that the antipathy is probably pretty thin (isolationist, rather than opposeing)and passive though (just based on annecdotal experiences).

I also wonder on both the street level and the government level how much of the hesitancy is due to the economic situation. It would be hard for politicians to justify cuts while bombing somewhere. Might this be the case in the UK (I haven't really been following that tbh)? But from what I can tell a lot of the congressional opposition has also been from the right (and this is true of media op-eds too) and that Obama hasn't "sold the war" to the public. So I also can't help but also suspect that this is all a show and what's going to happen is already sealed in the envelope.

[Paul Pott]

There is a lot of fear within ruling circles that what Obama is preparing to do will spook the weakened global markets, rally the people of the middle east against the west, and indirectly aid forces of all kinds opposed to American imperialism and Zionism, especially Al-Qaeda.

That's the basis for the opposition to the war in the legislatures of the major powers.

On the other hand, the Obama/Kerry clique and Republicans like Boehner and McCain see this as an ideal opportunity to reconsolidate American power in that region and as a critical stepping stone to the ultimate goal, defeating and puppetizing Iran, so much that they're apparently willing to risk the consequences.

[Decolonize The Left]

The justification for Syria is also totally different than for Iraq/Afghanistan (which are still going on and most Americans know this). Iraq/Afghanistan was fed to us as retribution for 9/11 and as a necessity in order to protect America (WMDs, Al Qaeda, etc...). Syria is being pushed as a lesson we need to give to some bad people. The motivation isn't nearly as strong.

[Comrade Jacob]

They know they will trigger WW3, they would be better off doing it somewhere less dangerous. It isn't to do with a sense of humanity, very few of those who voted against it did it because they are decent people.

[piet11111]

They know their lies are not fooling enough people and they also know the Russians and Chinese know exactly what is up.

They also know Assad's regime is supported by Hezbollah and Iran to the end and that the Syrian population are driven into supporting the regime out of fear of what their goons will do to them should they take over.


If they have to put boots on the ground (something they must if they want to secure the chemical weapons to prevent them from falling into the hands of their allies) they will be drawn into another Iraq/Afghanistan styled meat grinder and having to deal with anything Syria's allies will send to fight them.

Damned if they do and damned if they dont.

[goalkeeper]

Vietnam Syndrome 2: The Iraqining. The long drawn-out conflicts the US and its allies have fought in Iraq (and Afghanistan but especially Iraq) has left a lot of people with a bad taste in their mouths regarding military intervention in the Middle East, especially over WMDs. And has left establishment figures wary as well, nobody wants to end up with Bush's poll numbers or legacy, or having clips of their war mongering played endlessly should intervention prove to be another disaster.

This is complete nonsense though. There was no "Iraq syndrome" regarding the intervention in Libya. The reluctance of certain parts of the establishment to get involved has more to do with reservations about the nature of the rebel forces I think.

[Don't Swallow The Cap]

Out of everyone who I have talked to, no one has even been remotely supportive of the war. I have to admit it is a little odd having something my father and I agree on politically, albeit for different reasons. Even folks from the military town I grew up in, who are generally pretty hawkish, are strongly against the war. There just doesn't to be enough pro-war fervour in the air. That's what distinctly seperatles this from the past wars. The wave of nationalism and anger is simply not large enough for this administration to ride.

[Audeamus]

This is complete nonsense though. There was no "Iraq syndrome" regarding the intervention in Libya. The reluctance of certain parts of the establishment to get involved has more to do with reservations about the nature of the rebel forces I think.

Wasn't there? The US House of Representatives passed a resolution (H.Res. 292) which condemned (not particularly harshly but condemned nonetheless) the deployment of US military assets as part of the NATO intervention in Libya. The House also voted on, but failed to pass, a resolution which would have ordered Obama to withdraw all US forces from Libya. Nonetheless, it garnered 148 votes in favor, with 265 opposed. Those 148 votes in favor included 87 Republican congressmen, usually the more hawkish of the two major US parties. There was very much a growing trend of opposition to such intervention by the US and much of that opposition was based on the assertion that Obama had not provided Congress with a compelling rationale for war, which very much echos the disaster that was Iraq where the rationale offered by the Bush administration turned out to be built on lies.

[red flag over teeside]

I think that one of the stories to keep many on the reformist left warm on cold nights is this belief that be it Parliament or the Congress somehow listens and responds to peoples fears. This can be easily debunked by one word austerity attacks across the globe. No one wants these attacks but the ruling classes are still carrying on with them. The same goes for war. The bulk of the population doesn't want intervention in Syria agreed on that but the ruling elite couldn't give a damn. If they want to intervene in Syria they will irrespective of popular opinion. The reason they haven't I think is due more to divisions within the ruling classes with some favouring war and others more reluctant.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The current diplomatic ballet over Syria does sound a bit odd in some ways.

But..there is strong opposition to intervention by the US and European public. Politicians are afraid of being burned.Most of this opposition of course isn't based on anti-imperialist grounds (although I wouldn't discount this-NPR interviewed people in a sports bar in DC and asked the patrons if they planned to watch Obama's speech-the people there were very much aware of what was happening but had little interest in watching Obama. One guy said-"We start wars and kill people all over the world all the time").

The US military at all levels is opposed to Syrian intervention-largely because its rightfully seen as aiding Al Qaeda and there is a huge amount of uncertainty.

The US ruling class seems somewhat mixed on this as well. It is surprising that the NY Times runs articles extremely critical of the rebels just as Obama is trying to make his case.I don't think there will literally be a "World War III" but there is a huge amount of uncertantly involved in this.

Also..the intervention doesn't appear to have a stated political goal, or rather the goalposts keep shifting. Originally it was billed as several days bombing to punish Assad, which makes no sense.Drones would have been a big part of this but because Obama's drone warfare is intensely unpopular this wasn't mentioned.

Kerry spilled the beans by saying that there would be a need to further ramp up the "intervention"by "degrading"Assad's military.

Some leftist writers say that the real reason is not to topple Assad but to keep the pot boiling, to keep all the factions just strong enough to keep fighting.



This may be partially true but It seems apparent that the goal is regime change.With Assad gone the only alternative to an Al Qadea ruled state is a massive US occupation which would be even more bloody for the US than Iraq.

Whatever is going on w/Obama boxing himself into a corner with his "redlines" a defeat of the rebels would be a loss off prestige for US imperialism. In this era of "late capitalism" the US is being drawn into wars despite the ruling being divided.

Something like this happened in the run up to the Iraq war if I remember. Saddam did finally agree to open up areas to weapon inspectors and there was a brief time when it looked like war might be avoided. What is happening now is probably a rerun.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Is al-Qaeda really strong enough to "take over Syria" in the event of Assad's downfall?

I mean they (and by "they", I mean Islamists w/ ties to al-Qaeda groupings) did take over much of Mali briefly after beating back the more secular-minded anti-state forces there, but rural northern Africa seems like it'd be easier to take over than a more developed country like Syria.