In the US, Presidents have to be hawks. It's just the way things are.
It is possible that President Obama doesn't want to be a hawk, even though he has to be one.
So this leaves, it seems to me, only two real possibilities for President Obama's future actions towards Syria:
- Be a true hawk and strike Syria
and after doing so, have things turn out really badly (as there is a strong possibility that they would) and be forever known as GWB II,
or
after doing so, have things turn out just a little less than really badly (I don't see how a strike on Syria could turn out well, or even 'not so bad', for the people of Syria, the region, or President Obama.) and still be forever known as GWB II.
- Be an incompetent hawk and not strike Syria
with this inevitably resulting in charges that
"He's a weak leader. He couldn't convince the American people."
and/or
"He's a weak leader. He couldn't get our allies behind him."
and/or
"He's a weak leader. He couldn't project America's power and push through a UN Security Council resolution."
and/or some other such nonsense,
but, at least he won't forever be known as GWB II.
And it is very important to take into consideration that President Obama's term in office ends in a little more than three years and four months.
During which he could actually use not striking Syria to facilitate a negotiated end to the unrest in Syria, thus obliterating the incompetent hawk image forever. It would most probably end up being an unimportant asterisk in the history of his presidency.
So how could not striking Syria (or not having been able to strike Syria) end up in bringing about a negotiated end to the unrest in Syria?
It could be put to certain countries that the intransigence, incompetence, and dysfunctionality of the fragmented, noninclusive Western-recognized Syrian opposition and the actions and atrocities of the numerous very radical rebel groups these countries support, finance, and supply have resulted in many around the world understandingly believing that the opposition and rebels are now, and would be were they to seize power, as bad as or worse than the current Syrian Government, and that this was one of the major factors in there not being widespread public and international political support for a strike on Syria.
This then could make it possible for meaningful pressure to be put on the Western-recognized Syrian opposition to join, and to join without preconditions, negotiations to end the unrest in Syria, and might also make it possible for other until-now-ignored Syrian opposition groups to be included in these negotiations.
It could also make it possible for an end to, or serious reduction in, the support, financing and supplying of arms to the numerous very radical rebel groups in Syria to be agreed to in exchange for an end to, or serious reduction in, the Russian and Iranian military support being provided to Syrian government forces.
According to the information I have,
the US Government, the Russian Government, the EU, and the UN Secretary-General all completely support a negotiated end to the unrest in Syria,
the Syrian Government has agreed to participate in negotiations,
the Iranian Government has expressed support for negotiations and an interest in being included in them,
the Turkish Government, in the past few days, has switched from complete support of the Western-recognized Syrian opposition's positions on negotiations to supporting negotiations, even mentioning support for Iranian participation in them, and
a bloc of non-Western-recognized secular Syrian opposition groups has taken the position that it should be included in, and expressed its willingness to attend, negotiations, but
the Western-recognized Syrian opposition is still refusing to even consider participating in negotiations until all of their preconditions (such as the non-inclusion of Iran, the non-inclusion of other Syrian opposition groups, a guarantee that President al-Assad will be removed from office on the completion of negotiations - later changed to the removal of President al-Assad before negotiations begin, and a guarantee that only they will be included in any transitional government) are met.
It is possible, in my opinion, that if President Obama were to be an 'incompetent hawk', this could lead to the breaking of the logjams which are preventing the holding of meaningful inclusive, but clearly difficult, negotiations to end the unrest in Syria and to a negotiated end to, or serious reduction in, the arms being sent into Syria.
- * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - * -
Turkish Military Preparations on the Turkish-Syrian Border
The Turkish military is reportedly making significant increases in the military presence along the Turkish-Syrian border.
Not to defend against any Syrian government forces' response to a US or US-led strike on Syria, but to contain an anticipated flood of people trying to cross the border into Turkey should such a strike occur.