tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6559710283964047904.post6658817853870969026..comments2024-03-28T02:29:00.996-07:00Comments on Learning from experience_Larry hirschhorn: Obama's decision making process and Syria's use of chemical weapons. larry hirschhornhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03225178328441480792noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6559710283964047904.post-38843364527936153302013-10-23T13:01:21.260-07:002013-10-23T13:01:21.260-07:00Jim, thanks for your note. My counterargument is t...Jim, thanks for your note. My counterargument is that the chemical weapons question is not the primary issue facing Obama. Rather he has to develop and put into place a Syria policy. (See the October 23 New York Times report on the difficulties he has faced in doing so). Obama after all created the "enormous pressures" he faced to bomb Syria with his offhand comment about the red line in the first place. Without it, there would have been no such pressure. I am suggesting that this represented a lack of disciplined decision making. Nor was this the only example of his impulsiveness. Changing his mind about bombing after walking alone with his chief of staff and without any further consultation with Kerry or Hegel, points to some disarray. The NYT report of Oct 23 notes that during the Syrian deliberations his body language, as reported by those close to the decision process, communicated impatience and disengagement, "sometimes scrolling through messages on his Blackberry or slouching and chewing gum." This is one manifestation of lack of personal discipline under stress. The question is why? No doubt the risks and bad alternatives open to him create great difficulty. But this is the precisely the setting that requires discipline. Obama is noted for being cautious, but sometimes being cautious is a defense against being impulsive. One hypothesis is that under stress this defense weakens and he becomes impulsive. larry hirschhornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03225178328441480792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6559710283964047904.post-44617598743921421192013-10-20T21:07:24.547-07:002013-10-20T21:07:24.547-07:00From another perspective this was a tour de force ...From another perspective this was a tour de force in negative capability. Yes, Obama got into trouble with his "red line" comment. Impulsive, perhaps, but certainly an off the cuff remark that had global implications. I think by restraining himself - an the enormous pressures to turn to bombs - Obama created a space in which another resolution could emerge, that of Syria's willingness to give up its chemical weapons. I believe that under Bush we would have bombed. I think Obama's restraint was a beautiful illustration of negative capability under enormous pressures.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02757339414266432059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6559710283964047904.post-61213397934954664962013-10-14T13:16:40.109-07:002013-10-14T13:16:40.109-07:00An additional hypothesis I wish to propose, in dir...An additional hypothesis I wish to propose, in direct relation to the differentiation between ambiguity and uncertainty, relates to the role of The United States and its president in the cosmopolitical context.<br />Being non-American I referred to the U.S Declaration of Independence while forming my response, and found the two opening sentences highly relevant(1).<br />Seen as the U.S primary task, or purpose, the hypothesis is that Obama, in the face of ambiguity, acted impulsively in response to what he may have interpreted (consciously or unconsciously) as a direct attack on the primary task: such a grand scale indiscriminate chemical attack is everything and anything but defending people's right for "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".<br />Such interpretation may help other non-Americans draw meaning to what is seemingly irrational actions of the U.S towards many of its foreign affairs.<br />(1) For the sake of non-American readers: (-: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence#Annotated_text_of_the_DeclarationAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6559710283964047904.post-76986694785651984962013-10-14T06:46:00.240-07:002013-10-14T06:46:00.240-07:00Norbert, Obama's trust in Biden is due in part...Norbert, Obama's trust in Biden is due in part to the fact that Biden has no independent power base. Biden is totally dependent on Obama for his effectiveness. So in some ways you are underlining my point. Obama is at a risk of solipsistic thinking when he relies on staff members and the VP whose primary task is to protect his interests. The idea that Obama got lucky presumes that Obama sought an escape hatch from the Syrian problem, in other words to protect his own standing. I think his stumbles indicate that he is conflicted about this- he wants to uncover the meaning of Syria but gets stuck trying. <br /><br />larry hirschhornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03225178328441480792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6559710283964047904.post-51229320639429951792013-10-14T00:10:33.163-07:002013-10-14T00:10:33.163-07:00Recall that Joe Biden was at his side in the Rose ...Recall that Joe Biden was at his side in the Rose Garden announcement. Obama has great trust in Biden, so may not have wanted to consult with his Secretaries (and therefore all their staffs). I think he was buying time with the choice to go to Congress (where support was hardly certain), as well as forcing that branch to take co-responsibility for another Middle East attack. Like a poker player, he had to lay a bet and hope to get lucky, which he did.<br /><br />norbertAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com