What does the 1986 air raid in Libya, the 1991 Desert Storm battle and the 2003 Liberation of Iraq have in common? Obviously those are all military operations in which the United States had a hand and at least the veneer of justification. Not only that, but somewhere in the justification for launching military operation, an American nexus was apparent.
If President Barak Obama gives the go, US military forces will launch a brief aerial bombing campaign in Syria against soft military targets not because of any strategic imperative, nor because US interests would be advanced, but because a liberal president drew a "red line" and must back up US credibility.
Some entity in Syria possibly the dictatorial government of Bashir Assad launched a chemical attack that has killed around 1,400 individuals. United States UN ambassador Samantha Powers tweeted Saturday morning that among the dead were 426 children who died without, in her words, "a scratch, shrapnel wound, cut, nor gunshot wound..."
The missing irony of those unfortunate choice of words is that at least as many children in the Syrian Civil War have been killed by both sides by shrapnel, bullets and rubble. Typical with today's western liberal that the lives of "our children", is more valuable and worthy of outrage than the other 1,000 dead who were not children. Children dying in war is certainly horrible but in a conflict in which children have been dying for the last two years, the one thing most notable in this attack is the chemical weapons used.
But liberals will use the dead bodies of children like a bloody shirt to goad a feckless American leader into launching an airstrike against Syria. And as I have read elsewhere liberals are threatening to use Congressional refusal to intervene as a campaign issue in 2014. It isn't the first time our left has used dead children as a prop for a policy goal, and it won't be the last, but they can't hide the fact that the children who died were not American children. They were not even the children of any ally, but the children of a people who are the sworn enemy of Israel, which is -- last time I checked -- still an ally of the United States.
I won't make at this point dire predictions about what could happen following an airstrike against Syria. The possible scenarios that could happen could well be the same should Obama not hit Syria. Whatever entity in Syria which launched the chemical attack may well be planning a second attack already regardless of whether Syria is attacked, and it is just as likely the chemical attacker already shot his bolt. No more funny gas.
Regardless, unless Bashir Assad or the Syrian opposition wakes up and decides that coming to the negotiation table is preferable to the bloodletting that has gone on in the last two years, the bloodletting will go on, US airstrike or not. Nothing will change. Children will die only next time, we won't see photos of grieving families. We will see nothing. The left will be plotting to line up their next policy goal looking desperately for photos of more dead children to advance their agenda.
The decision to go to war is a shared decision, but as I have said elsewhere the War Powers Act allows a US chief executive to launch a military strike anywhere and at any time of his own choosing. His only constraint is that he has to come to Congress before 90 days are up to seek approval, and by that time, the US Navy fleet gathering in the eastern Mediterranean Sea will have been dispersed to other missions. Probably.
We are in the fifth year of the reign of a president who has offered very few good ideas and a whole slate of bad ones. The proposed airstrike against Syria is but another of a long line of bad ideas. But that is how Obama and his supporters in the medea and elsewhere are. He can't help himself. Bad ideas flow from him like effluent into Lake Michigan. It is Obama's imperium.
Chris Covert writes Mexican Drug War and national political news for Rantburg.com and BorderlandBeat.com. He can be reached at grurkka@gmail.com His latest work of non-fiction, The Wounded Eagle: Volume 2 went on sale yesterday at Amazon.com and Smashwords.com
Only someone as strategically inept as Susan Rice would think this is a good idea. Democrats have defended Susan Rice when the evidence has been overwhelming she really isn't qualified to be top National Security advisor, and her inexperience outside her foggy bubble is on parade right now. Partisans in the US keep making the same mistakes. They get caught up listening to what their political opponents say and don't pay enough attention to what the career oriented professionals say. The line of non-partisan career national security professionals who have deep respect for Susan Rice for her intellectual capacity of national security affairs is very short, and today may be invisible.
When the UK Parliament voted down Prime Minister Cameron's military participation in Syria on Thursday, that was a blatant sign of war fatigue by civilians in the UK (which also exists in the US). The last time the UK Parliament voted down a Prime Minister on matters of war and peace in the UK was regarding the Crimean War in 1855, meaning the events of Thursday was a once in a lifetime event as a political failure. Lord Aberdeen resigned the next day! Before 1855 the previous time was in 1782, when Parliament voted against further war against America. Lord North, Prime Minister at the time, resigned 3 weeks later!
I believe Susan Rice is partly accountable. She put Prime Minister Cameron in an impossible position and never saw his opposition coming. She is responsible for managing the national security political processes in defense of US National Interests, but her first move was to put the act of taking military action in Syria ahead of the facts that make a case for military action in Syria. Process is one of her primary responsibilities for the administration, and she is doing a terrible job. The first casualty of our National Security Policy to address Syria using chemical weapons on civilians was America's closest ally.
How will the US strike Syria? see link.. Outstanding piece. Read it all. Now.
#1
But they (the Democrats) really need a war (scratch) military action, what with the election coming up and all.
Posted by: ed in texas ||
09/02/2013 8:27 Comments ||
Top||
#2
he coalition to date consists primarily of the United States, France, Canada, Australia, Greece, and Turkey.
I found a number of questionable statements in the article but this was the biggest WTF.
Since when have Canada and Austrailia signed on to this? When has Greece signed on?
For that matter, what has Turkey done (or will do) other than arm the MoBro and AlQ?
So why is there such a disconnect between what Obama once declared and what he subsequently professed? There are four explanations, none of them mutually exclusive:
Each of the four rationales seems to fit quite well, so I guess they ALL apply!
Posted by: Bobby ||
09/02/2013 15:40 Comments ||
Top||
#4
So far no European or Arab nation has offered military support for our planned effort against Syria.
Except the Saudis and the French, but we don't want to go there do we? The Saudis are there to extend Sunni influence. The French see an opportunity to get Lebanon back as the Paris on the Med.
And for US? I'm still confused why we give a shit?
It would seem as the Saudis have something we need and it ain't oil.
A doctor from France says: "In France, the medicine is so advanced that we cut off a man's testicles; we put them into another man, and in 6 ...weeks he is looking for work."
A German doctor comments quietly: "That's nothing, in Germany we take part of the brain out of a person; we put it into another person head, and in 4 weeks he is looking for work."
A Russian doctor says boasting: "That's nothing either. In Russia we take out half of the heart from a person; we put it into another person's chest, and in 2 weeks he is looking for work."
The U.S. doctor laughs and answers loudly immediately: "That's nothing my colleagues, you are in no way behind us....in the USA, about 5 years ago, we grabbed a person from Kenya with no brains, no heart, and no balls....we made him President of the United States, and now....... the whole damn country is looking for work
[TIMESOFISRAEL] Israel wants to believe the US will yet intervene to stop Assad's use of chemical weapons, undoing some of the damage caused by the president's zigzag. For the leadership here, the alternative is too awful to contemplate
A bit overwrought, but there is a difference between suspecting the Big Satan will not have your back and knowing that you're on your own.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/02/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
#1
As long as the overgrown moron doesn't interfere.
#2
In warfare there are some things it is not a good idea to do because the Enemy will then ALSO do it. You treat prisoners decently. This encourages the Enemy to believe he may be treated decently and maybe you can get them to line up , "come on down" and stay alive.
You don't use poison gas unless you want the Enemy to use it TOO. There are few ways to die nicely in a war, but most people don't want to die foaming and squirting and twisting in agony and begging for someone, anyone, to shoot them.
But if Moslems want to do it to ONE ANOTHER, you eat popcorn and watch. Besides Obama wouldn't fight for his own mother and is a clown. He wasn't gong to go himself anyway. He would send you and your kids before he would go himself.
Obama is a mouth in a suit.
I try to stay away from people like that. You should too.
#3
"Hole three, third stroke, 200 yards out - this is when I think about Israel...."
"Fore!"
*I suspect the Obama Administration was gearing up for an end 3rd quarter domestic policy blitz and stage for 4th quarter enactments and was caught pants-down and without a plan for whatever this is. If this was an issue of concern for Obama, this case would have been prepared beforehand, submitted to Congress the hour after it had been confirmed, Congress called back into session, and the case made publically while they were in transit, and a vote within 72 hours of a gas attack Obama signalled would be war, what, a year ago?
As it is, the case has not been made by the President, and Congress has not been called into emergency session. My advice would be to plan to be at it alone, and if US help does arrive it will be after it is most needed.
To paraphrase, when seconds count, the US will be two poll results and a Sunday morning mouthpiece away. I want to be wrong, and it is just opinion, and the last four years of watching the Obama vs. Israel relationship, plus the military doctrine of LGBT > QRF.
#5
"when seconds count, the US will be two poll results and a Sunday morning mouthpiece away"
A keeper, swksvolFF.
And under Bambi, sadly too true. :-(
Posted by: Barbara ||
09/02/2013 16:21 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Barbara, it's not sad it's disgusting. I read so many things that are based on the same unwarranted assumption that it makes be ill. My cynicism reflex has been maxed for the last 5 years.
The assumption? That BHO actually cares about anyone or anything other than his own aggrandisement and power. There is, swks, nothing else that concerns Hussein.
[NATIONALREVIEW] While there is still plenty of time for Obama to make the case for war, lawmakers are still seeking answers to big questions, chief among them being what a strike would accomplish.
That's true among Democrats as well. One Democratic aide says if the "strategic objective is to slap someone's wrist," that won't exactly be compelling.
Some liberal commentators have reacted with glee that Obama's plan puts the political onus on Speaker John Boehner. But the initial reaction by Republican insiders is that Obama faces far more risk, since he would look profoundly weak in defeat.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/02/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
#1
both the senate and the house will have to revise the draft resolution to put time geographic and other limits on the President's authority; they will also try to get some better clarity on objective
if Obama cooperates in this they probably will pass something
Posted by: lord garth ||
09/02/2013 0:25 Comments ||
Top||
#3
No, this should be a straight up or down vote - no amendments, not tied to anything else.
Hopefully this will be voted down. This will put Obama in bind - he claims he could have done it without going to Congress. But if Congress votes it down - and explicitly says "Do not go to war" and he does anyway... Personally, I think that would be grounds for impeachment. If the President can ignore Congress, and go to war against their explicit orders, he has seriously violated the Constitution.
As Donald Sensing pointed out, any flag officer who obeys Obama's orders against the explicit will of Congress is violating his oath.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
09/02/2013 1:32 Comments ||
Top||
#4
A chance for US Congress to show that they're, at least, as grown up as Brit Parliament.
#5
firing missiles at a foreign country is not necessarily war
congress didn't declare war in the Korean conflict and hasn't done so in any of the conflicts since
congress did not give obama authorization to act in Libya
it is true that under some interpretations of the War Powers Act that using force against syria could be construed as illegal but first of all a number of Presidents consider the War Powers Act to be unconstitutional and second its not clear that the WPAct applies to say a five day strike using stand off weapons
Posted by: lord garth ||
09/02/2013 2:32 Comments ||
Top||
#6
So If the Norks fired a "few" missiles at the USA because of their deployment of Justin Beiber (insert other excuse) that wouldn't be an act of war?
#8
Obama hand off. Here, this is your problem now. I support the constitution. This is the proper procedure. I am the leader. They must do the right thing. Too hot today for golf. Spades sounds good. My administration is fully committed to Obama care passage now at this time. Send Powell out to help the media action.
#9
This has nothing to do with Syria. It's sort of like the economy 5 years ago. No matter what the US does, things will get worse in Syria and an enemy of the US will be in charge. So Syria will get worse, no matter what.
So what is it about?
Initially it was about Samantha Powers' conscience. But now it's about 2014.
Obama wants the House under donk control. Since Syria gets worse no matter what, how does he attach blame for it to the trunks? Make it their policy that caused all the problems. Because Obama isn't responsible for anything.
#11
As a point raised yesterday, no approval and taking action in which there is no clear threat to the country, has the potential to strip the man of any protection once he leaves office against international charges involving the acts of waging war. Will they? It's a gamble and considering that the man has a unique talent to alienate friends and former allies both by act and vacillation, I wouldn't write an insurance policy on it.
...congress didn't declare war in the Korean conflict
However the UN did authorize it [the Soviets were boycotting the meeting at the time] and Congress did provide the funding.
#12
Some liberal commentators have reacted with glee that Obama's plan puts the political onus on Speaker John Boehner
Which is tied to the long-war goal of '2014'.
My take: Congress will take a max of 3-4 days to decide. I'm figuring either a Tuesday or (more likely)Thursday, September 12, decision.
Either way, there'll be an attack window beginning September 14. September 11 is likely both too early and too symbolic for the administration to use (though I supposed the Left would love the 'tweak',) and September 13 is Yom Kippur, with all that that implies.
The one thing I don't see anyone considering is that Obama knows there will another chemical attack, which can be blamed on Assad, soon
The critical word here is "soon". "Soon" enough to engage in an immediate reprisal with Congress still debating or having voted "no"?
Or "soon" enough that US military assets have been pulled and the reprisals are aimed at Congress?
Either way, given this administration, whether it happens mid-September or after another 'chemical attack", it'll be an all-out.
#14
NS, like the gas attack itself, a 9/11 plan fits more with the motivation and PR of the opposition than it does with Assad.
I doubt that the Russians would appreciate their Syrian ally getting linked in to that picture. The rebels? Hell yes especially if they could "Green Helmet" the event and control the PR.
#17
another small chem attack by assad is possible but I don't see how his forces could do a big one right now on a scale anything like the aug 21 attack
in the aug 21 attack eight neighborhoods were hit each by multiple projectiles some by more than a half dozen
this is because most of the assets assad would use for an attack for example artillery are currently being hidden and likewise the chem weapons themselves
btw I think the Obama admin would have been happy to dither or otherwise look the other way if the evidence wasn't so overwhelming
Posted by: lord garth ||
09/02/2013 11:23 Comments ||
Top||
#18
So the idea is to send our military to assist the same people the president drone zaps in Yeman and who kill our service members in Afghanistan.
O's Glee Club should just be happy I'm not putting this acceptence speech for the Speaker of the House, now that this is officially an issue, something about a plan for Syria sitting next to the plan for Benghazi, next to the plan for the military budget, the public has been shut out like visitors to the White House. A massive cruise missile strike was ordered while the President learned the Samba, shall we hold our breath every time he chips for par?
I don't like any of the sides in Syria. I don't like the idea of chemical weapons being normalized. I don't trust this administration. I do look forward to the very people who wanted a post-american world arguing for intervention.
[NATIONALREVIEW] But the object of war, in Liddell Hart's famous distillation, is not to destroy the enemy's tanks (or Russian helicopters) but his will. And on that front America loses, always. The "unmatched" superpower cannot impose its will on Kabul kleptocrats, Pashtun goatherds, Egyptian generals, or Benghazi militia. There is no reason to believe Syria would be an exception to this rule. America's inability to win ought to be a burning national question, but it's not even being asked.
Posted by: Fred ||
09/02/2013 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
#1
Maybe stop playing world enforcer for tranzi ideology.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Only someone as strategically inept as Susan Rice would think this is a good idea. Democrats have defended Susan Rice when the evidence has been overwhelming she really isn't qualified to be top National Security advisor, and her inexperience outside her foggy bubble is on parade right now. Partisans in the US keep making the same mistakes. They get caught up listening to what their political opponents say and don't pay enough attention to what the career oriented professionals say. The line of non-partisan career national security professionals who have deep respect for Susan Rice for her intellectual capacity of national security affairs is very short, and today may be invisible. 
