President Obama is firmly committed to delaying the decision on Syria. He gave a news conference to clarify his position, where he said he knows he should and he knows he could but he also knows he shouldn’t so he couldn’t. This an emergency situation the world cannot ignore, so when he’s done with his vacation and congress is back in town they are going to hash it out and firmly decide.
In the meantime, John Kerry is visiting all the talk shows trying to look and act mean. The only thing scarier than President Barack Hussein Obama is the thought that he is getting guidance from John Kerry. Actually, Kerry is low down on the list; Obama’s primary guidance counselor is rumored to be Valerie Garrett. This is the same Valerie Garrett who tried to talk him out of authorizing the raid on Osama Bin Laden. We can’t even dream of a sudden illness solving the problem, because the Vice President is Joe Biden. It is really hard to be optimistic about this.
My guess is that Putin is having trouble controlling the giggles. We truly have the dream team in place, if you are a fan of Russia and our other enemies around the globe.
It appears as though the grand plan is to launch a limited number of air strikes and cruise missile attacks. In the meantime we have given Assad more than enough time to prepare. There are already reports that he is locking up captured rebels in important military installations. My guess is that he will add in a lot of innocent civilians. Don’t be surprised if he also decides this would be a good place to store those chemical weapons.
Suppose one assumes that it was Assad who authorized the use of chemical weapons. (So far that has not been proven and one wonders why he would do this, because he is clearly winning the war.) But, assume that he did do this. Would he hesitate to create a situation where any attack by the U.S. would result in massive civilian casualties? Do we really think we can solve the problem of Assad killing innocent people by launching a military assault destined to kill more innocent civilians?
In the deluded world of the liberal left, this is ok, because it will be limited in scope. Liberals only believe in limited war where there is no risk to our troops and we are very careful to avoid any potential for actual victory.
In the meantime congress is in a real pickle. If they do not give Obama approval, we will look even more weak and pathetic. A weak President endangers us all. In addition, at least some people will try to paint this as racism. Yet how can anyone believe this administration with all the lies and deception that has taken place over the past four years. More importantly, how can anyone honestly believe that Obama is remotely capable of making good decisions if things go wrong? Even if members of congress convince themselves that something needs to be done about Syria, who in their right mind would trust Obama to get the job done? Syria is definitely a problem, but the real risk to our national security is our incompetent Commander in Chief.
The rest of the world is already on to Obama. The British Parliament gave a resounding vote of no confidence.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/02/syria-intervention-downing-street-vote
While Cameron took the direct hit this was really a rejection of Obama’s leadership. The only country pretending to help us so far is France. But one should keep in mind that the French are famous for biting off more than they can chew. They are primarily known for negotiating surrender after catastrophic defeat. In addition, the French surrender monkeys are already chirping and Hollande may not get authorization to help either.
http://www.france24.com/en/20130901-usa-stalling-syria-puts-pressure-france-francois-hollande
This is a real mess. Perhaps the only thing more damaging that failing to give authority to President Obama is giving him authority he is destined to misuse. This time there is more than the U.S. economy or our health care system at risk. Obama could easily blunder his way into World War III.
England found itself in exactly this position at the onset of World War II. The problem was solved when the British Parliament got rid of Neville Chamberlain and replaced him with Winston Churchill. Unfortunately that option is not available in the U.S.
The biggest problem with Syria is that the problem will not remain limited to Syria. In some ways removing Assad is similar to dismissing an abusive prison warden. It feels good at that the time, until you realize that the inmates are the real problem. If Assad is removed from power don’t expect a smooth transition to a secular democracy. It is more likely to look like Libya or Iraq before the surge. The thought of having Assad in control of chemical weapons is disturbing. But the thought of those weapons getting in the hands of the rebels, which means in the hands of al Qaeda, is a thousand times worse. Assad may be truly evil, but he does not appear to be suicidal.
Ultimately I think that the only responsible option available to congress is to tell Obama no. The most likely decision will be to micro-manage stupidity. I expect congress to give Obama some authority, but far less than he wants and nowhere near enough authority to actually solve the problem. This is easy to predict, because it would be the worst possible decision.
TDM