<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?><oembed><version><![CDATA[1.0]]></version><provider_name><![CDATA[The Dish]]></provider_name><provider_url><![CDATA[http://dish.andrewsullivan.com]]></provider_url><author_name><![CDATA[Andrew Sullivan]]></author_name><author_url><![CDATA[https://dish.andrewsullivan.com/author/sullydish/]]></author_url><title><![CDATA[The Anti-Quagmire President?]]></title><type><![CDATA[link]]></type><html><![CDATA[<p>For balance, here&#8217;s <a href="http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/the-anti-quagmire-president-so-far.html">an argument</a> that Obama&#8217;s record of not sliding into intractable conflicts so far is a reason to trust him not to slide on Syria. I just worry that Rice and Power &#8211; combined with liberal interventionist Tony Blinken &#8211; is too strong a faction for the president to resist. He&#8217;s already foolishly committed himself rhetorically to war with Iran &#8211; rather than containment and engagement &#8211; if it gains a nuclear weapon; and his &#8220;red line&#8221; comment about Syria was red meat to the Clintonite tendency. Once a president has said such things, he can be dragged further into the mire.</p>
<p>To my mind, the key components of a successful Obama presidency &#8211; an actual change we can believe in &#8211; is the ability to resist war in Syria or with Iran under almost any circumstance. And I have to say I think he has put himself into a dangerous corner on both. After Libya and this execrable <em>volte-face,</em> I&#8217;m fast losing confidence he has the core strength to trust his own judgment against all the war mongers around him.</p>
]]></html></oembed>