CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: It is a complete humiliation for the Obama administration. Forget about the merits of what Obama wants to do which I think it’s a bad idea. But let’s assume it’s a good idea. This involves the elementary conduct of international diplomacy, trying to get some allies aboard so you don’t act unilaterally. So who’s the main ally in the world who’s been with us in every trench for the last 100 years? The British. And now the British have voted against us. The other supposed ally was the French, President Hollande, and now he’s saying we got to wait for the report from the UN inspectors which will be early next week.
So here is Obama and the Democrats who railed against the Bush administration for its supposedly unilateral invasion of Iraq where we had 48 allies for a mission that involved boots on the ground, a real invasion, a real war. And here’s Obama trying to gather an ally or two for a pinprick and he gets nothing. This is just on the basis of thinking ahead, let’s say, a week ahead. When they leaked all this information about exactly what we’re going to hit, where we’re going to hit it, what the reasons are and the objectives are, and we’re going to have a coalition of the willing, did nobody actually think to check on the allies? I mean, these are guys who couldn’t organize a three-car funeral.
- PRESIDENT UNILATERAL: Obama Set for Limited Strike on Syria as British Vote No. Good thing we got … (pjmedia.com)
- Kevin Price: Echos of the ‘Bush Doctrine’ in Obama’s Syria Rhetoric (huffingtonpost.com)
- Obama ‘cannot launch’ missile strike on Assad without British support (thetimes.co.uk)
- Obama strike plans in disarray after Britain rejects use of force in Syria (theguardian.com)
- Britain says no to action as US readies against Syria (thedailystar.net)
- Charles Krauthammer: Obama still dithering on Syria (redding.com)
- Hagel: U.S. In Talks With Allies On Syria (huffingtonpost.com)