His initial thoughts are as follows:
"It laid out a reasonably clear but unsurprising plan. It was not much of a bold move or a gamble; public opinion and a good deal of congressional opinion is on his side.
There was one paradox: now the president wants to ramp up support for the anti-Assad forces in Syria, the same group that has been asking him for military help for two years without much success.
He rightly wants congressional help -- both for the reason he cited (unity and strength) and, surely, for the "cover" it provides in case things go wrong.
And there are questions: what kind of support will Congress give? It is not clear that, despite his claims, he has the authority to make war against forces inside Syria, so, technically, he needs the sort of support he and President Bush had for Iraq and Afghanistan. What happens if his strategy fails to degrade and destroy ISIL? Can he pull together a coalition to both fight and fund the fighting? He has not been very successful in the past.
My own sense, watching him, was that there was a disconnect between the kind of bold and vigorous action he is calling for and the man's own inner leanings and thinking. He looked as presidential as he can, but somehow it seemed just a bit artificial. His emphasis on the courage and leadership of the U.S. helped take the spotlight off himself, which was important to solidify and enhance the support he needs."
RSS