ErikLundegaard.com - Where Andrew Sullivan is Wrong on Syria, Obama

Where Andrew Sullivan is Wrong on Syria, Obama

From Andrew Sullivan's site, which I subscribe to. First he quotes a Washington Post/ABC News poll:

Only 32 percent said Obama had explained clearly why the U.S. should launch strikes. Back in March 2003, as the Iraq War started, 49 percent said that President George W. Bush had compellingly made his case for what was then at stake.

Then he adds this:

So Obama has much less domestic support than Bush, no backing from the Brits, open hostility by the UN for immediate war, and an obviously conflicted administration. This is a war even less likely to succeed than Iraq and even less popular.

The war in Iraq didn't fail because of an erosion in domestic support; it failed for other reasons that were reflected in an erosion of domestic support.

This is not an argument in favor of missile strikes in Syria, by the way. I don't know enough on that subject to even begin discussing it.

Posted at 10:32 AM on Wed. Sep 04, 2013 in category Politics
Tags: Andrew Sullivan, Barack Obama, Iraq War, Syria

COMMENTS

Arky wrote:

I don't see how that quote from Sullivan says he thinks the war in Iraq failed because of an erosion in domestic support.

He's just saying that not only is the Syria war less likely to succeed than Iraq (for multiple reasons) it is also less popular right from the outset, prior to the first missile being launched in anger.

Comment posted on Thu. Sep 05, 2013 at 12:49 AM

Erik wrote:

I was rereading it last night and agree with you. That was a misreading on my part.

I'm still not a fan of the Iraq analogy. Iraq was completely of our own making. We turned the world's attention there and invaded there for our own reasons. Much of the world's attention (if the world can be said to have an attention) has been on Syria for more than a year.

Me in 2002-03: Really? Iraq?

Me today: Damn. Syria.

Comment posted on Thu. Sep 05, 2013 at 07:02 AM

Erik wrote:

The debate that should be happening in the U.S., and isn't, is: Do we ever get involved in another country's affairs in this manner? It could be a two-fold history lesson. When has the U.S. gotten involved and why; and what historical atrocities would you be willing to stop with military force and to what extent?