Many people have complained about a new policy of “American Exceptionalism” in our wars and foreign policy. It appears however that we may have to call it a policy of “American Incoherence” after reading the latest remarks of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — policies that are understandable only to our leaders. Clinton (who supported the armed intervention in Libya because of the threat of citizen deaths) has announced that no troops can be sent to Syria without the consent of the regime. I happen to oppose military intervention in Syria, but we continue to convey to the world that the only guiding principle in our foreign policy is opportunism.
In the lawsuit by the members of Congress challenging the Libyan war (where I served as lead counsel), the Administration insisted that it did not need any consent of either Congress or the Libyan government to start bombing military and infrastructure sites.
Of course, these are “peacekeeping forces,” but the contrast to Syria is striking. In the lawsuit, Syria had already killed more civilians than Libya, but the Administration claimed that it had unilateral authority to enter Libya. Clinton insists that she is trying to “convince the Assad regime that they are leading Syria into the outcome that we all deplore. We do not want to see a civil war in Syria.” Presumably that does not include drone attacks where the consent is neither required nor often expected.
In the meantime, Libyan forces are now being accused of many of the same atrocities committed by the prior regime.
What is even more worrisome is the steady number of leaks and comments about an expected war with Iran — a war that we could easily be pulled into with a preemptive strike by Israel. That would move Syria further back in the line for U.S. intervention.
Source: Foreign Policy
63 thoughts on “Clinton: No Troops Can Be Sent To Syria Without Assad’s Consent”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-14/iran-may-disrupt-hormuz-shipping-supporting-oil-price-s-p-says.html Saudi Arabia would welcome higher oil prices.
Here’s Obama’s foreign policy. Charles Krauthammer said on Obama’s bloated budget bill he offered Congress that gives $800 million to Islamic spring countries.
“The president knows were heading over a cliff and he just wants to get past election day… For the president to offer this knowing how dire the situation is is truly scandalous.”
Hey but don’t worry there’s a party at the Whitehouse wit Mick and the boys for black history month.
I think Mike S. addressed it quiet well when he talked about the radical fringes… peace…. hope he will address this…just because some are not in a cookie cutter mold… does not make them bad people….. peace….
Diesel is already at or above $4 in Florida. You know what that means right.
with speculation it could go much higher.
Those pesky speculators
bdaman, The nyt article that I posted said it would quickly move to $150 with war with Iran which would probably be about 7 bucks for a gallon of gas. I think with speculation it could go much higher.
Some 16 Americans and 27 others linked to NGOs have been held for trial in Egypt
Obamas hostage crisis
It’s obvious that this administrations foreign policy is a complete failure.
Muslim Brotherhood Warns U.S. Aid Cut May Affect Egypt’s Peace Treaty With Israel
The law of unintended consequences, or is it.
Swarthmore mom 1, February 14, 2012 at 3:55 pm
rafflaw, I don’t think Obama wants the price of gasoline to double to 8 bucks a gallon. That would mean a recession and a sure loss in November.
Gas prices’ earliest-ever rise above $3.50 a bad sign for motorists
American motorists have seen the national average for a gallon of regular gasoline rise above $3.50 a gallon on just three occasions, but it has never happened this early in the year. Analysts say it’s likely a sign that pain at the pump will rise to some of the highest levels ever seen later this year.
Don’t start again this up again,please. Peace.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/166232/united-states-and-al-qaeda-are-same-side-syria I don’t think talking about war with Iran and Syria is hijacking even if it includes all relevant candidates positions.
Great video clip!
For those that have not ever utilized the saying “keep your friends close but your enemies closer” this is the prime application…
No US aggression = Iran has absolutely no reason to hit US or it’s interests
US (or Israeli) aggression = Iran has every reason to hit US or it’s interests
I think you could address the inverse of pimping for Obama….. Just as much as Jillster tries to invoke the perils and fears of voting for Obama you got the same here…. hijacking a thread to get the message out…..
Now let me get this straight we need to attack Iran because they have a despotic government and might at some point get nuclear arms. However, we don’t need to attack N.Korea even though they have a despotic, unstable government, that has nuclear arms and a delivery system. We removed Libya’s crazy dictator, but we can’t remove Assad without his permission. Despite Syrian pipelines they ain’t got no oil. The common thread, as with Iraq, is we find urgent need to remove despotic dictators as long as oil is involved.
“Whoops. Did I say you had to ask us to bomb you? Of course, I misspoke!”
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/02/08/rick_santorum_the_iran_man Apparently Santorum is obsessed with Iran like Cheney was with Iraq.
Tuesday, Feb 14, 2012
“U.S. media takes the lead on Iran”
By Glenn Greenwald
“When continuously bombarded with authoritative voices uncritically warning them of the Grave Threat posed by the New Hitlers, and with powerful images of menacing missiles and unhinged leaders accompanying those warnings, even rational populations will become sufficiently scared into succumbing to the next act of aggression.”
“The only thing unusual here is that, with Iran, the American media actually seems out in front of the U.S. Government in the propaganda effort rather than in their normal position of submissively marching behind.”
“This nicely summarizes the state of American neocon foreign policy discourse at the moment.” -Greenwald, referring to the following video
Comments are closed.