Iran Situation

[Dill]

(01-08-2020, 02:50 PM)jj22 Wrote: They didn't say the same about Obama's red line. And we didn't commit an act of war by killing their top general, and Syria didn't attack an American base in response after Obama threatened total destruction if they did.

I believe Obama should have followed through too. But at least that wasn't a conflict between American Military vs Syria Military. It was principle of using gas on their people.

And yet Trump supporters still attack him for his weakness.

They certainly didn't credit him for stopping WWIII and take a shot at conservative media. Go figure.

That's a useful comparison, for several reasons (e.g. Obama's efforts to inform and involve Congress before acting), but I don't agree that Obama didn't "follow through."

His goal was to get chemical weapons out of Syria, which he did through a diplomatic action involving Russia, France, Finland, Denmark, Great Britain, and Germany. That was serious cost to the Assad regime.

In the last months of Obama's presidency, Assad began rebuilding the program and used chemical weapons again in 2017. Trump impulsively sent a round of cruise missiles into Syria in response to a reported use of Sarin. The Syrians then continued using Chlorine gas. The situation was complicated by the fact ISIS and Al Nusra also began using chemical weapons. So Trump drew another red line, claiming he would attack again if Assad used the nerve agent Sarin.  Trump did attack again in 2018.

Anyway, you make a good point when you say that a President needs to keep his word, especially regarding bad actors. I just don't think that really applies to Obama's Syria red line, since clearing the country of chemical weapons was more damaging than a strike, and WAS keeping his word--just not the kind of pyrotechnic unilateral action US neocons like Bolton wanted.

Yes, Trump supporters do go on and on about Obama's "weakness" and failure to bomb, but that kind of rhetoric can only circulate effectively where detailed, contextualized knowledge of US foreign policy actions and their consequences is practically non-existent.  We don't want to adopt their account of the Syrian intervention, right?