Syria

[Ego]

Has he purposely boxed himself into a no-lose situation? Are they engineering a lost vote on purpose?

If congress doesn't approve, he gets to say he tried but failed because of the obstructionists. He extracts IOUs in exchange for vote-against passes given to fence-sitters on his team. Later he'll call in those IOUs for votes that really matter. Syria explodes on its own. He has the other side to blame. Or it just slowly falls apart and we all forget about the distraction.

He keeps his promise to go to congress. He comes away looking like he tried, looking like he cares.

[jacob]

"Knowing where the trap is that's the first step in evading it. This is like single combat, Son, only on a larger scale a feint within a feint within a feint... seemingly without end."

It's like the Keynesian beauty contest for investing only much harder.

What I'd like to know ... is politics efficient?

[GandK]

I don't see how politics could possibly be efficient compared to the known alternatives. (Not to say it isn't still "better" than, say, dictatorship.)

[Chad]

You could consider politics efficient, as it's a means to get an agreement on how to use resources. Now, that agreement isn't necessarily the most efficient use of resources, but the other option would be not making a decision and not using the resources at all.

[Dragline]

What I'd like to know ... is politics efficient?

No. Particularly in a system built around "separation of powers", which is inefficient by design.

[JohnnyH]

I'd agree with Dragline, but then I'd say separation of powers is a thing of the past... It's all about the Executive branch and the special interests that run the POTUS like a moderately priced escort. "Important" legislation can usually be fear-mongered through in a matter of days. So I'd have to say it is tragically efficient.

[jacob]

According to the media [by the quantity of articles], the popular opinion seems to be turning solidly against.
It almost looks like it's the demopublican leadership (even the ranks dissent) against the rest of the population.

Interesting how the power structure is revealed.

[Felix]

It's a strange feeling when you realize that an ex-KGB-agent tries keeping a Nobel Peace Price winner from entering a war.

Yes we can, but we won't.

[jennypenny]

Did you read Putin's op-ed in the Times? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opini ... times&_r=1&

Strange indeed.

[Chad]

I see no one wanted to argue against my devil's advocate answer on the efficiency of politics.

An interesting question, was getting Syria to hand over chemical weapons without using force the goal of Obama the entire time? I'm not convinced it was, as it's a rather slick move, but there is enough evidence to support the idea to some extent.

[Chad]

It's a strange feeling when you realize that an ex-KGB-agent tries keeping a Nobel Peace Price winner from entering a war.

Yes we can, but we won't.

It's not like Putin is doing this out of the goodness of his heart. He has ulterior motives, like any world leader. Syria/Assad is his closest ally in the area and Assad's loss would drastically hurt Russia's Middle East influence.

[Chad]

Did you read Putin's op-ed in the Times? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opini ... times&_r=1&

Strange indeed.

It's actually kind of funny.

Putin speaking of Democracy? Oh, please. Not that our last two Presidents have much room to talk, but Putin? The guy is basically a dictator. Just a week or two ago he put people in jail for painting rather risque pictures of him.

Also, the UN has always been heavily controlled by the US and ignored by everyone when they don't agree with it. The UN is not going to crumble when the security council vetoes an action of force and someone ignores it for the thousandth time.

"We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law." Give me a break. What about all our strikes in Yemen? No opposition from Putin there.

He is correct that it could destabilize the region further, as well as help extremists in the rebel ranks to victory. Iraq, Libya, Egypt, etc. are all examples of what happens when those extremists have to cork removed. Bad stuff happens. In the long run, this bad stuff is likely to spill on to the US and Russia.

"It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States."

It is alarming that large scale interventions, ala Iraq, have become common place. However, surgical strikes have been common since I was born 40 years ago and Russia isn't exactly innocent of all of this either. There are tons of them (Grenada, Panama, virtually every Latin American country, Libya - multiple times, Beirut, Iran, etc. and those are only the US ones)

He is correct that we are damaging our credibility with the constant use of force.

The real reason Putin doesn't want the US to take down Assad, which these strikes would surely go a long way towards, is a pipeline or multiple pipelines from the gulf through Turkey to the EU. Specifically, natural gas pipelines, as Russia has a noose around the EU, especially Germany, with natural gas. This is a big stick for Putin to lose.

Obviously, one could write pages of analysis on Putin's NYT article, but those are the big things that jump out at me.

[jennypenny]

I think they've fumbled their way through this. The fact that Putin gets to play peacenik in the NYTimes is evidence enough of that.

They misjudged Americans' appetite for further international involvement, regardless of the reason. I think it shows yet again DC's disconnect with the rest of the country (on both sides of the aisle). If you ask someone specifically about Syria or gun violence or racial tension, you'll get the predictable response and appropriate level of outrage. If you just ask them what they're concerned about right now, most will say uncertainty surrounding their jobs and health insurance.

When you're out talking with people, are they talking about Syria? Maybe where you live they are talking about it more? Here, I've heard a few passing comments (usually just that they hope we don't send troops there), but most conversations I've been a part of over the last couple of weeks have revolved around when open enrollment starts and what people have heard from their employers or union reps.

[Felix]

It's not like Putin is doing this out of the goodness of his heart. He has ulterior motives, like any world leader.

Yes, that's part of what makes this setup so bizarre.

[Ego]

Putin sounds a lot like an American politician appealing to the electorate. I wonder if outsiders are realizing the potential they might have by appealing to Americans as a third-party candidate might.

We've been doing this for years through mouthpiece-ambassadors who get as much press as president or prime minister. The tables have turned.

[JohnnyH]

This must be damaging to the D party when Putin is reasonably cautioning against another war... Seriously, who are the remaining Obama supporters? Is there no abuse/betrayal large enough for them to question their loyalty?

[Chad]

More than likely they fumbled this and did not realize how tired US citizens are of intervening in other countries. I do think the "on purpose" idea is interesting, if unlikely.

When you're out talking with people, are they talking about Syria? Maybe where you live they are talking about it more? Here, I've heard a few passing comments (usually just that they hope we don't send troops there), but most conversations I've been a part of over the last couple of weeks have revolved around when open enrollment starts and what people have heard from their employers or union reps.

I don't consult average people on this stuff (or really care to be honest), as they are clueless. They don't even know the facts about domestic policy, let alone foreign policy. The majority couldn't even find Syria on a map. But, you already know this about me.

[Chad]

Putin sounds a lot like an American politician appealing to the electorate. I wonder if outsiders are realizing the potential they might have by appealing to Americans as a third-party candidate might.

We've been doing this for years through mouthpiece-ambassadors who get as much press as president or prime minister. The tables have turned.

We have had a basic disdain for soft power since Bush was elected. Interesting that it is now being used so blatantly against our government. I am interested to see how well this letter is received. The majority won't even read it, but will have tons of opinions on it.

[Chad]

Forgot to include this link about the pipelines in my long post:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -pipelines

[Felix]

This is becoming more entertaining by the minute:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/09/13 ... iser-says/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/ ... YD20130913