My adventurous bet would be: before this day is over. Based on international power politics, Obama's agenda and the public opinion this also seems the best bet for the president to save face.
The strike on Syria will be 'very limited' but postponing it would inevitably lead to a no show as the momentum turns against it.
First Obama's agenda: on Tuesday he will visit Sweden and although he will downplay the strike and national security is not at stake (he will claim) it's still awkward for his hosts if his visit is overshadowed by news about bombing Syria.
The two days following Sweden he will be attending the G-20 economic summit in Petersburg and it would be more than awkward to be amidst fierce opponents of a strike on a conference hosted by Russia. It would seriously harm the economic interests of the US to affront China and Russia at the summit.
With congress returning from recess just days after the G-20 and in view of the letters sent by over a 100 members of congress urging Obama to consult them before a strike, doing it during the return flight from Russia is asking for a major political fall-out in the US.
Basically postponing the strike means Russia and China have more time to convince or coerce other nations to accept their view that a political instead of a military solution needs to be found.
With France and Turkey being the remaining larger allies for an Syrian intervention, chances are substantial that they will lend an ear to the Russian and Chinese arguments. Especially France is vulnerable as it desperately needs friendly economic relations with China.
On top of that postponing also means the French parliament will assemble (planned for the 4th) possibly weakening the determination of president Hollande.
So basically the only time slot for an attack is between the departure of the UN inspectors and the 4th of September. Looking at the US opinion the polls hardly show support for an intervention. Chances are slim that this will change substantially over the weekend.
Now this afternoon (US time) Kerry will release an edited version of the intelligence on the Syrian gas attack. Also this afternoon rumors started circulating that the UN inspectors are already leaving Syria.
If Obama wants to save face and 'do something', although very limited as he now insists, his best bet is use the momentum of today's Kerry press conference.
No doubt the Secretary of State will have heart breaking footage showing dying children accompanied by lots of circumstantial evidence pointing to responsibility of the monstrous Assad.
If there ever is a moment the Americans will stand by their president, it will be in the wake of today's press conference and before the opponents of war have a chance to doubt these data. Nothing can be gained by further delay
P.S. Yes, there is the other option of Obama backing out of an intervention, but by now that would be seen as a friendly nod towards Assad to go on with whatever he is doing.
The US diplomacy failed completely by using strong words and digging itself into a position where the president officially didn't make up his mind, but can't afford to do nothing.
Unfortunately I can only conclude that an attack is inevitable and imminent: I hope readers can show why this scenario is incorrect
+John Blossom this might interest you.
Well, Friday is the best day to fire people..maybe also to fire guns and bombs..
I don't think he can launch a strike, even though that's what everyone thinks is coming.
Because rainbows, +Max Huijgen. Rainbows. 'Nuff said.
In all seriousness, egos aside, I wish it would just vanish. Part of me smells WW3, and it stinks. Forget 'another Irag', this could be far worse depending on what happens.
I'm hoping the UK's refusal to participate may slow things down for the moment….
thought so too +Susan Stone and made this post Fast action on Syria blocked by hastily assembled parliaments but like I said in the above post the US seems to be stuck in an impossible situation.
I don't think so … Peace in Syria.
The US stock market is betting that the rain will fall before Monday. +Max Huijgen
Think about this. Our intelligence on the ground is poor, we likely don't know where the weapons are stored. A strike must have purpose, either to roll back regime gains or cripple it. Neither will be gained from missle strikes and if we hit a depot filled with gas and it envelops a city, then what? On top of that a russo-china military or frankly any alliance would be bad news and this action would give leaders of both nations political capital to pursue that very thing. Short of a picture of assad lobing gas grenades by hand or some definitive proof, he can't risk it, even at the cost of credibility. However we have one form of credibility that never diminishes, piss us off enough and we will come…
+Max Huijgen Could you remove me from your alert circle on this topic please. I don't wish to have a bias presentation on this important issue.
On your last post about this it was stated that it was the United States was really the one who used the poison gas so we could remain "relevant" in the world or some such nonsense – and NOT ONE PERSON except me stood up to say "wait a minute". In fact, +Catherine Maguire seemed to say I didn't even have a right to express my opining on this because I am an American unless I did more "reading" and acknowledged how horrible America has been throughout history.
Oh, and by the way, I am not in favor of an attack – like most Americans I haven't decided yet.
Or for that matter if we bomb them nothing stops them from claiming we hit a gas depot even if we don't and releasing the agents themselves, then blaming us. That is the greatest risk of all, it gives his major backers enough capitol to justify boots down and would have a major detrimental effect on US foreign policy around the world. No, a strike would be most foolish indeed…
+Rob Gordon I'm not responsible for comments and views of others. Your last comment there was attacking me for things I never said. You never took it back unfortunately.
I notified you because you were interested in the subject and debate is important. I will remove you now.
Will a US strike definitely happen? I think it is possible there will be no strike, or I give a 50% chance to Saturday and 50% chance to Tuesday. So the options are never (or least not for a few months), Saturday, Tuesday.
+Rob Gordon I'm kind of with you guy, I too am an American. I prefer an open forum and debate so I don't mind what people say or that I get notified so I can see what people out of my sphere think. That being said the idea we gassed them is ludicrous. Not because its not possible but because the people who would benefit most from this are not us. Think about it. Assad knows where the red line is, countries all around him fell like dominos, he has every reason to think we would hit him, regardless of who backs him. It is possible he thinks that those countries would hold us in check, but all historical precident is exactly the opposite, so this is unlikely. So who benefits most? The Russians and Chinese. Why? Because it gives them geo political leverage. If we don't move our president looks weak, but we as a country don't and everyone knows it. If we do move those countries have a reason to get pissed and take steps of their own. Even our shady industrial military complex stands to make no profit from this because we are not ever going in there. We have had enough. We have lost enough and we have gained nothing from all these conflicts, and the whole world is signaling the same thing…
It is more logical to say the gas attack was bait for a US strike than to say we did it for an excuse to strike. The real question is who would benefit from this, certainly not the US. Then who? Maybe Assad wants to bait the russians into a more heavy handed role, a US strike could do this…
They always have an excellent reason to attack. Starting wars is easy.
+Bruce Marko at least that is intelligent and plausible – and if you are going to bait the U.S. that is a pretty good way to do it.
+Max Huijgen I don't recall "attacking you" but I do recognize a bias presentation when I see one – and I didn't call you "anti-American" – I was referring to the other commenter – though you criticize America frequently and I don't recall seeing you do the same for your own country. If I were to post all the time about Germany I'm sure you would have reason to be a little suspect.
No, you are not responsible responsible for what people say on the comments on your post, but your response certainly was revealing. It is perfectly acceptable to make the accusation that America used poison nerve gas on civilians because we love war so much or some such nonsense, but if any American tries to express an opinion that is different, or even stand up to the lies, they must first acknowledge all the horrible things America has done throughout history.
Again, I have not decided what I think should be done about this – except that I don't think "nothing" is the right answer and I don't think your claim that the President "saving face" is the real reason. It could actually by – oh I don't know, to make sure that there are consequences from this kind of action.
Thank you from removing me from your alerts = I never did request to be in a circle for this topic as you claim, but I did respond: http://goo.gl/Cq32ny
+Rob Gordon This is the first post on this by +Max Huijgen but it seems pretty non-biased, at least as far as any opinion is. He's just giving the reasons he thinks an attack will happen soon.
I am curious where you're finding unbiased reporting on this (or pretty much any) topic.
+Bert Knabe This is not the first post on this topic. It was clear on the post he made yesterday that opinions of Americans were not welcome unless you practically renounced your own country. I am going to mute this tread – I already expressed my opinion of that on my own post and had I not received unrequested notification again would have just left it at that. Have a nice day,
+Max Huijgen You certainly know how to ride the wave 🙂
I'll be low-profile on this from now on, I think that our President is going to make good decisions that will be for the betterment of humankind, hopefully with Congressional support and hopefully with international support. The world has waited far too long to take action, resulting in bad actors turning this into a nasty fight. This could have been Libya, now it will be just…Syria. But the sooner that action is taken, the less likely that chemical weapons work their way into places like the streets of Frankfurt and New York.
Meet the new boss,
Same as the old boss.
I want to share this with you all.
http://youtu.be/TP3mXVRd89Y
I feel it helps broaden the problem that is Syria's place in the World.
I give Obama a week. I'm sure England backing down will take these cruise missile strikes to a crawl, and I know we are all hoping bombs will not be unleashed.
There is much to say about conspiracy and who actually did what when it came to the chemical attacks. I just have to ask you all one question. If there really is a civil war going on in Syria, do you really think the leader of the country would use weapons on his own people?
I feel sorry for those United Statesians that feed off of the misinformation in the world and make reckless decisions and believe false ideas and non-facts.
I pray for the safety of all Syrians from the United States and Old Money.
Excellent [and plausible] analysis.
Well that makes sense except for the part where it doesn't…like all of it. No he wouldn't. Again I ask the most obvious question. Who stands to gain? Not. Us.
+Rob Gordon I didn't mean to imply this was his first post on the topic. It's just the first one I've seen.
And I was really curious about where you find unbiased information. My experience is you have to sift through the bias just about everywhere you go.
+John Hanks Well put, hopefully the best action is taken for the safety and the future of all Syrians.
Cowards just make a move when it is too late!
Guardian Headline: "France expected to replace UK as key US ally". Should of course read "Cheese-Eating-Surrender-Monkeys from Old Europe expected to etc, etc …"
If US doesn't take any action, Hizbullah and Iran get much ruder and already uncontrollable
Sorry Catherine, but that is no more true than it was for the last two wars, and iraq had more resources. It is others who would gain from this the most in political leverage. What did it gain from previous interventions?
I do not think Obama is incline to save face, that would be a local tactic from the Republicans (or vice versa if the other party) but the world stage may trump that urge. A better question is "does another report surface to reignite the debate?" Cause the discontent has been been quelled from the last message.
+Rob Gordon this is the second time you do a hit and run accusing me of things I never said and then 'muting' the topic.
Your first time which you don't recall was this one Well since your entire profile is filled with anti-American rants – to the complete exclusion of anything else, I guess I am not surprised that you would have such a bizarre conspiracy theory
Now show me example posts showing conspiracy theories or anti_American rants.
Oh, and by the way I'm not even German, but I would have no problem at all if you posted or commented in a less than complimentary way. I'm not a nationalist.
Meanwhile the press conference is over and Kerry used all the big words like dictator, saving the planet, the not specified 'allies' and of course the newspeak "This is common sense," he said. "This is evidence. These are facts."
Obama however kept his reserve, but there is no way the US can back out of its position. A symbolic attack will have to follow.
Kerry has also used words like murderer and thug to describe Assad. I can't believe the state of the World. Why are we listening to this guy? He's a damn flip-flopper puppet man (or maybe he's actually an idiot). The facts are we don't know, but we can speculate as to who did what. I'm sick that Kerry pulls out the double-think, saying a lot while saying nothing at all. Thanks for the updates on all this, +Max Huijgen.
+John Hanks It's interesting to listen to people defending Assad and people taking offense at him being called a brutal dictator.
Yes +John Blossom I'm with you on the need to condemn Assad. I commented on building up the PR show as a pretext to bombing.
In case my stance isn't clear I would be in favor of severe sanctions against the regime, a procedure before the International Court of Justice and full pressure on the regime to hand over all individuals involved in the decision making to that court.
Lol you think its a currency issue?
+Bruce Marko currency?
No. Its silly. Opec can take whatever denominations for there oil they want, whenever they want regardless of us action.
Ah well, the most important thing is that we discuss if and why we want a military intervention. I respect people defending it citing morality as well as opponents who consider the consequences.
What I don't respect are the incidental ad hominems in comments.
+Bruce Marko +Catherine Maguire
However, in all fairness, it would make a powerful argument if we had any real control over it. But we don't. ..
Fair enough max. I find that fair and balanced and shall respect it. I Don't want one..
+John Blossom, I don't condone his actions. I'm just saying he more than likely didn't use chemical weapons. If he did, he forfeits everything. He knows he would be the world's biggest A-hole if he used chemical weapons. He knows how the United States deals with these kinds of people. He is brutal. He is a thug. He is a murderer. I can only think people are people, and they come in all walks and shades of sh*t and I just can't dream of a ruler of a country, and a rich ruler at that, pissing off the entire world in a swift blow.
Sorry, I didn't mean to address you specifically +Catherine Maguire or +Bruce Marko witt the ad hominem comment.
Peace and justice in Syria.
Peace and justice in Syria.
hoping for Peace!
The French public isn't happy with an attack. Polls show that about 2/3 of the respondents opposes military action,
Politics is the art of the achievable, so politicians must do a better job of explaining the "why" and the "what." The "why" has been hard, and the "what" is also hard if you don't want to tip your hand.
This is important reading about Syria.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/06/the_baby_and_the_baath_water.html Gives some historical perspective by documenting the USA's experiments in national manipulation in the Middle East in 1947 and onwards.
And Europe hasn't manipulated the Middle East? In essence they created it – with nation-states that conveniently split up rival tribes and factions. And today, much of the politics in the Middle East are now based on Europe's sourcing of oil from the region- now most oil for the U.S. comes domestically, a major shift over the past five years.
Generals are criticized for fighting the last war, but others sometimes do the same. The Middle East and North Africa are in the middle of a great upheaval that can result in a more moderate, healthy and peaceful region. We can turn that movement over to radical forces or we can help the forces of moderation. Your choice – it's at Europe's doorstep, after all…
Aaannd now Obama has called everyone's bluff. Congress, if you want to drop some bombs, your call. World, if you want to ignore blatant and egregious violations of international chemical weapons norms – norms that 98 percent of all nations claim to stand by via their signing of treaties – go ahead, make a mockery of your commitment to morality as the skin flakes off of innocent children. At least he's ready to do the right thing when you are…
And updated again when the news broke earlier today
All bets are off: Congress Will Decide on Syria attack https://plus.google.com/u/0/112352920206354603958/posts/UUa9uqNACcg
Hmm, now all of a sudden the "guns of August" talk grinds to a halt…
So this is what a congregation of terrorists looks like.