<b>Obama's options: They're all bad</B>
By Tom Foreman, CNN
updated 6:23 AM EDT, Sat August 31, 2013
As more than one pundit has noted, President Barack Obama now has three choices in Syria: Bad, worse, and horrible. At least the evidence is steadily stacking up to suggest that is the case. So let's break down those options, including some that have already come and gone in this tortured march toward a possible military engagement:
Option 1: Ground troops
You don't have to be a political scientist to know that American voters are exhausted by more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and would show little or no tolerance for more boots on the ground in the Middle East.
Option 2: Establishing a no-fly zone
Maintaining such a presence over the months it might take to have an impact would be hideously expensive, and would involve endangering U.S. pilots with highly uncertain results in a battle that many Americans find confusing at best, baffling at worst.
Option 3: Arming the rebels
"Al Qaeda's affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, is generally acknowledged to be the most effective force fighting," says CNN National Security Analyst Peter Bergen who adds, "Al-Nusra's military prowess and close ties to al Qaeda make it a potentially serious threat to U.S. interests in the region."
Option 4: Securing United Nations' support
Not going to happen without some other major developments in Syria. Russia and China have left no doubt that they will oppose any effort at the U.N. to approve a strike, and other countries have hardly shown much appetite for the subject.
Option 5: Assembling a coalition without the U.N.
One by one, however, names have slipped off of the list from this support group. And with the British Parliament now having rejected the idea of Britain's military getting involved, Obama is looking more and more like the lone commander charging the hill while his allies hunker down in the trenches.
Option 6: Firing missiles from warships in the Mediterranean
Yes, it is pretty much down to that now, and even that option is complicated. However, all the days of wrangling have given the Syrians an immense amount of time to hide their own weapons, secure their airplanes, and disperse critical command and control assets. Should the Tomahawks start flying, they may well find themselves crashing down into an inordinate number of empty buildings.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/30/politics/obama-syria-options/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Will this be Obama's greatest foreign policy failure?
By Tom Foreman, CNN
updated 6:23 AM EDT, Sat August 31, 2013
As more than one pundit has noted, President Barack Obama now has three choices in Syria: Bad, worse, and horrible. At least the evidence is steadily stacking up to suggest that is the case. So let's break down those options, including some that have already come and gone in this tortured march toward a possible military engagement:
Option 1: Ground troops
You don't have to be a political scientist to know that American voters are exhausted by more than a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, and would show little or no tolerance for more boots on the ground in the Middle East.
Option 2: Establishing a no-fly zone
Maintaining such a presence over the months it might take to have an impact would be hideously expensive, and would involve endangering U.S. pilots with highly uncertain results in a battle that many Americans find confusing at best, baffling at worst.
Option 3: Arming the rebels
"Al Qaeda's affiliate in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, is generally acknowledged to be the most effective force fighting," says CNN National Security Analyst Peter Bergen who adds, "Al-Nusra's military prowess and close ties to al Qaeda make it a potentially serious threat to U.S. interests in the region."
Option 4: Securing United Nations' support
Not going to happen without some other major developments in Syria. Russia and China have left no doubt that they will oppose any effort at the U.N. to approve a strike, and other countries have hardly shown much appetite for the subject.
Option 5: Assembling a coalition without the U.N.
One by one, however, names have slipped off of the list from this support group. And with the British Parliament now having rejected the idea of Britain's military getting involved, Obama is looking more and more like the lone commander charging the hill while his allies hunker down in the trenches.
Option 6: Firing missiles from warships in the Mediterranean
Yes, it is pretty much down to that now, and even that option is complicated. However, all the days of wrangling have given the Syrians an immense amount of time to hide their own weapons, secure their airplanes, and disperse critical command and control assets. Should the Tomahawks start flying, they may well find themselves crashing down into an inordinate number of empty buildings.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/30/politics/obama-syria-options/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Will this be Obama's greatest foreign policy failure?
