Let’s interrupt today’s article about Obamacare and instead talk about Syria, rather briefly. Here are my impressions. Please share yours in the comments:For those who haven’t been paying attention... like pretty much everyone... Obama is preparing to go to war with Syria. They probably won’t call it war. They’ll call it something like “intervention,” but it will be war. My guess is they’ll drop a bunch of cruise missiles on government buildings and military bases. They’ll bomb some rocket sites and some tanks and blow up some MIG something or others. Then it’s likely they will set up a no fly zone.
Economically the stock market dropped, which is a load of el toro kaka because Syria has no connection to the world economy at all. They make nothing. They dig up nothing. They transport nothing. The only thing they export are Syrians.
This has been an interesting build up to non-war-war because Obama drew a very clear line in the sand for the Syrians to avoid war. He told them, “Don’t use chemical weapons or my own rhetoric will force me to act.” This was a well chosen line too because Syria had no need to use chemical weapons, i.e. they have more than enough conventional power to slaughter their enemies. So using chemical weapons suggests they wanted to pull Obama into this.
For his part, Obama now has no choice but to act. But here’s the problem:
(1) This is again a Western country attacking an Arab country. In the past, the left has screamed that this is what inspires Islamic terrorism. So why has Obama attacked Syria and Libya and illegally bombed the crap out of people in Pakistan and Yemen and Somalia? Secret Muslim my Ramadanadingdong.Finally, I should point out that the Magic Syrian never appeared... just as I told you it won't: LINK.
(2) There is no endgame here. The rebels are even worse than the regime. The ideal solution would be for a Syrian-sized asteroid to crash gently on the country. Guess we shouldn’t have cut NASA’s budget, should we Mr. Obama?
(3) The Europeans are spent when it comes to war. Their ten soldiers are too tired after Afghanistan and won’t be out of therapy for decades. So we’re going this one alone except for possibly Turkey, and letting Turkey in raises questions of a larger regional struggle.
(4) The public hates the idea of getting involved. That last good poll I saw on this showed 9% support for intervention... about the same number of people who think Superman is real.
(5) There is a chance that any violence will spark a larger war with Israel. Iran is talking about using Syria as a pretext to attack Israel, though I highly doubt this. Cojones is a Spanish word and they don’t speak Spanish in Iran, which means they ain’t got no cojones in Iran.
Thoughts?
62 comments:
I concur, Andrew. Factor in Russia and China and Syria ain't worth even firing a cruise missile at.
Incidentl, Obama was an idiot to reduce his options, but I've come to expect that from him.
I guess he thought Assad would take his threat seriously, like Egypt's military...oh wait...
I think it's rich that France wants us to take the lead on this Syrian thing.
You first, guys, LOL.
Mgic Syrian...Lol. Yeah, good luck with that, Economist.
Ben, How dare you impugn Mr. Obama who has worked out the perfect solution, no doubt.
Actually, what I find interesting here is that he's stuck between all of his rhetoric. It's bad to attack an Arab country... but it's bad to let dictators kill their own people... but it's bad to intervene at all... but it's we must instantly attack if chemical weapons are used... but you know.
Have you noticed that no one doubts that chemical weapons were used? The same weapons Saddam used against Iran and his own people after the Gulf War and which liberals later claimed didn't exist? Interesting.
Ben, Isn't that Economist article a joke? Seriously, they are all over the map. And ultimately, their solution is: "Pray for a magic Syrian."
If anyone hasn't read that article, it's worth a read.
Indeed. For all we know one of the rebel factions could've used the chemical weapons, if they were used at all.
I'm sure not gonna take Powers' word for it.
I suspect Obama will try to use this as a distraction from his other failures, and hopefully, not make it worse like he did in Libya and Egypt.
At any rate, a free Syria is not gonna happen anytime soon, and probably not for generations to come, if ever.
Ben, I don't doubt that Syria used chemical weapons. My point is that Saddam did too. We had proof when he used them against Iran and proof when he used them against the Kurds. Yet, the left claimed there was no proof. This time, a couple administration flacks say, "Yep, they used them," and the left goes along with it... no screaming about inspectors or lying administrations, no street protests, no UN table pounding.
As for Obama using this as a distraction, I think this can only make things worse for Obama and he knows it. If he causes a miracle, people won't care because Americans don't care about Syria. If he does anything less than a miracle, then it's just another failure to add to the very large heap of failures he has built up. Ultimately, this will be a forgotten failure unless he commits US ground troops and then it will be a remembered failure.
Thanks for clarifying, Andrew.
Aye, the reaction from the left reeks of hypocrisy on that front.
Din't Biden also threaten to start impeaching Bush if Bush ever acted without approval from Congress that he got?
Funny, that seems tohave slipped his mind when Obama attacked Yemen and Somalia.
And Libya, of course.
That being said, Assad may have very well have used chem weapons, but I still have no faith in what this Administration says given their history and lack of media oversight.
Ben, You're welcome. Agreed, total hypocrisy. Also agreed that I don't believe anything this administration says. Lying is state policy now.
And yeah, it's funny how Mr. I-Would-Never-Go-To-War-Illegally has been doing everything Bush did and more. What's he done is WAY beyond anything he himself called a war crime.
What's the percentage of people who think Obama is Superman?
I don't know, but something like 6% think he's the anti-Christ.
He's run the Clinton play book before. A few cruise missiles, a few baby milk factories bombed, a no fly zone and Obama's ratings go up.
What worries me is that after years of defense cuts and the pruning of non PC officers there's a chance that the state of the art of US strategy and electronic warfare systems could be behind the Russians. If that's the case, this could get nasty.
Are you insinuating that Superman isn't real?
LL, Uh... no. LOL!
K, I don't think that's going to be a problem. We are very far ahead technologically, and the few programs that have been getting cut are things that were questionable to begin with. I'm also not aware of any pruning of the officer core.
Also, in terms of Russia, their stuff looks great at air shows, but has proven to be pretty pathetic on the battlefield.
What will be interesting is that they've sold some of their newest anti-aircraft gear to Syria, so that will be an interesting test to see if that can do anything... I doubt it.
I think he's silently praying that this goes like Libya. We set up a no-fly zone and a somewhat friendly-ish transitional government with little control over the country got into power.
You know, its often said that generals and leaders are guilty of fighting the last war. This might be the first time said last war was merely 2 yrs earlier.
Andrew,
K might be referring to Boykin, a Christian fundamentalist general who thought it was a great idea to cast the War on Terror as the next Crusade. He backtracked, then retired in 2007 (undoubtedly with encouragement) then unbacktracked once he was out of uniform and ensconced in the Family Research Council.
There was am imbroglio where a soldier (though not an officer) got in trouble for trying to hand out hundreds of Pushtun language Bibles. The military seized the Bibles sat on them for a while, but eventually destroyed them, which made for some awesome headlines.
Andrew....I don't think Obama even cares what the results of his Syrian adventure will be. He has a sycophantic media covering for him, lap-dogs in Congress and yes-men and womyn surrounding him. So, he thinks he's inviolate and nothing that has taken place in his charmed life has ever cracked that delusion.
Thus, who cares if he bombs, cruise missiles, drones or otherwise "attacks" Syria? Whatever he does, and whatever the outcome, it will be spun by him and his gang as a "success!" And it will add to his legacy as a our "brave Sir Robin" President.
In fact, instead of someone following him around reminding him he's human, I envision the same reaction as Ruby Rhod's hangers on who always agree that whatever Ruby (Obama) did was the "best, unbelievable, awesome, super green"!
I can remember when the Syrian leadership was being feted by American liberals (mostly notably in Vogue). Who would have thought that wearing expensive Western clothes didn't give you Western values?
I have a hard time seeing this metastasizing
into a real war but even just dropping bunker busters on a few military bases isn't going to go over well with the American public who gives less than a crap about anyone in Syria and views with a jaundiced eye promises that 'this military action will be really limited'.
If Syria's smart they they'll let us shrink their army by a few hundred people and then move on with their lives, but as Andrew said, they started this intentionally so they might keep fanning the flames.
I haven't figured out what they hope to achieve. As others have noted, they seem to be following in the footsteps of Iraq. Iraq is an inconvenience for America, but Saddam and his family were demonstrably better off before they picked their last fight.
Just as interesting will be how Republicans play this. Hopefully Paul, Cruz and friends will play the game of attacking Obama's bumblings abroad a little more skillfully than Romney did (waiting till the blood dries before holding a press conference is usually a good idea).
Ben, as they say, France will fight this war to the last American.
Frankly, this is just amazing. The U.S. is getting involved for no other reason than that Obama got boxed into a corner rhetorically and would have lost all credibility if he didn't do something. Lesson #1 of foreign policy: Don't make a threat if you aren't prepared to back it up.
At the risk of sounding un-Christian, we need to leave them alone and let them kill each other.
Maybe someone can talk Jane Fonda into going to Damascus and sitting on an anti-aircraft gun for a photo op....
Wonder if Sean Penn and all the other anti-war activists will go to Syria and become human shields against the upcoming US attacks?
so that will be an interesting test to see if that can do anything..
The Israelis hacked the Syrian (Russian) AA missile systems some years back, since then Putin and his proteges have increased Russian defense spending concentrating mainly on equipment upgrades, so yes, it will be interesting. I just wish American lives weren't on the line.
T-Rav....I heard that the French were also sending a crack surrender unit to Damascus as part of their "international support."
"The U.S. is getting involved for no other reason than that Obama got boxed into a corner rhetorically and would have lost all credibility if he didn't do something. Lesson #1 of foreign policy: Don't make a threat if you aren't prepared to back it up.
Absolutely, and Obama will vamp until he absolutely has absolutely no other choice. And he will have all of his little fall guys to blame (which is anyone that's not him), if it all goes badly.
I think we have as much credible information that there really WAS a chemical weapons attack as we had to the run up of Iraq war, (I mean, Saddam did poison all of those Kurds that the liberal press denies), I am not convinced that it was al-Assad/Syrian forces who perpetrated the attack. And is Obama REALLY aligning himself and this country with Al Qaeda now??
Kit, I'm not sure he has a plan. I think he's been forced into this by rhetoric he thought was safe and now he's just going to drop some bombs and see how things turn out.
Anthony, That could be.
I'm told there's also apparently a guy at Fox who is pushing the idea that the military is trying to purge everyone except minorities, liberals and non-Christians. I haven't read the guy because there is enough stupidity in my life, but I have a relative who is constantly telling me things this guy "uncovers" about how Obama is trying to destroy the military.
None of it is ever true.
Patriot, LOL! I love that image of Obama moving around the White House like Ruby Rhod with a team of sycophants following him around gushing about everything.
I don't think Obama care personally about Syria. But he doesn't want a disaster on his record. If Syria becomes another Iran or descends into chaos like Pakistan or Yemen, he will be blamed and he doesn't want that.
Anthony, Excellent thoughts!
First, yeah, it's funny isn't it how wrong liberals were once again: "If we make them rock stars, they'll become just like us!" Yep, that's never worked, but no doubt it will work this time.
Second, I can't see this becoming a real war either. We don't have the resources or the will. The public won't even like bombing. No American life is worth a million Syrians.
Third, I have no idea what Syria wants out of this, but these guys often do things that don't make sense to Westerners. Perhaps they think the mere act of surviving will rally Muslims to their cause and lift the pressure? Maybe they're hoping to get aid from other regional bad guys? It's clear to me they could have avoided this with ease. In fact, I'll bet you the chemical weapons probably weren't even as efficient as just shooting people.
On the Republicans, they will mishandle this. First, they will all try to prove their machismo by pounding their chests: "If I was in charge and wasn't tubby and sitting behind this microphone, I would send in the troops and take care of this... me man!" Then they'll do the thousand voices thing afterwards: (1) Obama should have gone in harder, (2) Obama shouldn't have gone in, (3) he did it wrong, (4) now now, he did it right, (5) he intentionally messed it up because he's a Secret Muslim, (6) we need to double military spending, (7) we need to stay out of wars, etc. And people will ignore us.
T-Rav, That is exactly why we're getting involved: Obama boxed himself in. That's the problem with liberals using rhetoric that doesn't match reality.
The ironic thing is that I'm sure Obama thought his rhetoric was completely safe. He basically laid down a road map for Syria to ensure that the US never got involved, but they crossed that line. Clearly, they think it will help them to bring us in.
Critch, At the risk of sounding un-Christian, we need to leave them alone and let them kill each other.
I concur. This is not our fight in any way shape or form. And I don't want to see any American killed for this.
Patriot and Critch, That would be fantastic. I'll pay the price of their tickets... one way of course. :)
K, Syria recently bought some of Russia's top of the line stuff, but Russian hardware has proven to be crap the world over. My guess is that the whole system goes down after a handful of cruise missiles.
Bev, I think Syria really did use the chemical weapons. Those tend to be something that only an organized military force can use and Obama isn't going to lie to force himself into a fight he doesn't want.
That said, however...
My issue is exactly what you point out. There is no more credible evidence (probably less) that Syria used them than we had about Saddam having them (and using them). Yet, liberals screamed that we had no proof. Even to this day, they claim there were no weapons despite the proof.
In fact, there was a smear job the other day in which Slate or some other leftist rag tried to blame Reagan for helping Saddam use chemical weapons against Iran. Chemical weapons they simultaneously claim didn't exist.
This is why leftists have no credibility and this is what Republicans should be pounding on today. "Wait a minute?! Where's the proof? You attacked Bush in Iraq for offering much more proof. Where is yours?"
"In fact, I'll bet you the chemical weapons probably weren't even as efficient as just shooting people."
Or just bombing them. All they would've had to do is call the Russians and ask them "Hey, Vlad, can we borrow some Dresden-style firebombs? Ok, good. No, you just leave them by the door like you always do. Thank you."
Kit, Exactly. There was no military reason to use chemical weapons. So I suspect it was meant as a provocation at the West for some reason.
BTW, Isn't it interesting that liberals don't care so much that you kill people as they care how you kill people. Shoot them, bomb them and we're fine. Poison them, then you're evil. That's sick thinking.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!
I still contend that we should stay out of civil wars. There was a good article in the WSJ over the weekend on where Obama screwed up foreign policy the worst and that was with our relationships with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt (esp its military). These have been long standing allies in the region and now he has had to kiss some butt lately. And now even the leadership of Turkey has been less than friendly.
This is a UN problem because the refugees are spilling out all over the place. Obama should be using the UN to criticize Russia for supporting a government that would us chemical weapons. Maybe even convince the Chinese to join us in the condemnation.
Since Obama is the Magic Negro, could we send him over there to be the Magic Syrian?
Koshcat, I'd be happy to trade them Obama if they would take him, but even the Syrians aren't that stupid.
Obama's foreign policy has been a mess from day one. It seems like his plan was to do everything Bush did only to act snotty about it. When that didn't work, and the world didn't suddenly love him, I get the feeling he completely withdrew from foreign affairs. He now has two stamps, "Kill it" and "Ignore it." And as issues cross his desk, he stamps them with one or the other.
Andrew, Andrew.......When it comes across the REAL Presidents desk (Valerie Jarret) that is when the decision is made.
Check this out for relevant topical humor on our macho Preezy:
http://www.caintv.com/obama-et-al-discuss-syria-on-f
(Can't do links on my MAC!)
I am going to disagree with one issue you stated, "...to do everything Bush did..."
He has tried but never understood what sort of background work went into what Bush and his team did. They never did anything in the Middle East without the consent of the Israelis or Saudis. Obama and his crazy liberal anti-semetic entourage hated these people and decided to not work with them. They said fine, but don't ask us for help later.
Time to take Joe to the ice cream man indeed. LOL!
Here's the link: LINK
Koshcat, True. Very true. What I meant more was this: "Obama kept doing everything he screamed about Bush doing... and then some."
He has completely neglected all of our overseas relationships.
"WE are the president"
Hilarious.
The problem the Dems have is that we elected a community organizer as our President. Therefore, all he cares about is "transforming" the US community. He could care less about the international community except for the praise and adulation he originally got from the usual suspects.
Unfortunately for us, the Presidency actually is responsible for both domestic AND foreign policy. By surrounding himself with half-wits from the Kennedy School of Government thinking, we are now reaping the result of their starry-eyed dreams of decimating US influence around the world (because we are the cause of all wars and misery across the globe...hegemonic, imperialistic and downright evil).
Nope....we are reaping what this buffoon and his fellow travelers have wrought. Not that I think it will make any damn bit of difference in the long run. Our foreign policy since Reagan has been weak, ineffectual and ill-timed. Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. All spoke softly and carried a little stick. I say let the "international community" handle this and all future conflicts in the Middle East.
Patriot, they come with backup shipments of white flags and manuals on how high to raise one's hands.
Patriot, The problem isn't that he's a community organizer, it's that (1) he's super lazy, he's shown that repeatedly, (2) he lacks basic skills because he never earned his jobs (any of them) and he's narcissistic enough to believe that he's good at it without working at it, and (3) he's stuck between decades of contradictory liberal rhetoric that spun out of control under Bush and is now blowing up on them all over the place.
And so it begins... I just saw my first article from a leftist calling the chemical weapons attack an "alleged slaughter." Ah the left. We need to spur them on and watch them rip Obama to shreds.
What are the probabilities that the attacks were by the Al Qaeda based rebels and not the regime. While Obama and Biden assure me that this was definitely the Syrian Regime both these individuals also assured me Benghazi was about a You Tube Video with 10 hits at the time. So ... I am just a tad skeptical
Andrew
In the vein of providing solutions instead of being part of the problem I feel that I have the answer to this rhetorical trap that Obama has boxed himself in. Sure he should never had stated he would do something if the weapons were used and instead stated that if they were used the US would "weigh its options" but he didn't and know to save face he has to do something.
So this is what he should do. Order a C5A to be filled to the brim with half unrolled toilet paper and fly over Assad's house where his children sleep and dump all of it all over. Then Obama can point his finger and say it I wanted that could have been napalm. don't use anymore chemical weapons.
Indie, I think that is honestly brilliant!
The UN would totally let us sit at the cool table after that.
Just be sure to use biodegradable TP to keep the ecoweenies quiet. It's not that I care, I just don't want to deal with their crap.
Indi, LOL! A TP bomb. That would change the world!
It boils down to this:
If we really wanted to protect people in the region, we should have kept a presence in Iraq.
If we really wanted to thwart Iran we should have kept a presence in Iraq.
"We are very far ahead technologically, and the few programs that have been getting cut are things that were questionable to begin with. I'm also not aware of any pruning of the officer core."
Cancelling the F-22 was a major disaster. All the development money was already spent. Everyone said it was performing great. Completing the program would have cost just a few billion, a drop in the ocean, which will now be spent keeping 30 year old F-15s flyable. Cutting the F-22 at a small number ensured that we cannot afford to lose any. It was a decision that ensured maximum waste. But I´m sure it felt good.
America thinks the F-22s and F-35s that are showing up in the movies are real. Well, they´re not.
People keep repeating that we are spending more on the military than x nation put together. I hope it is self-evident why this is completely irrelevant. Besides what I´m really worried about is not spending alone but also things like culture and doctrine.
I´m no expert but I keep reading about very troubling stuff. Reduced capabilities - training and systems - in many areas, like antisubmarine warfare, that could become decisive within a very short time. Are we sure our complete dependence on GPS is a good idea? Meanwhile there is a lot of silliness that should be cut but isn´t, from the navy´s vulnerable unarmed speedboat called LCS (built at the cost of a multi-role frigate, natch) to eco-friendly 5.56 rounds (less capable but lead-free!) to diversity-based policies. Remember how General Casey´s first concern after the Fort Hood massacre was about "diversity"? There is obviously something rotten here.
History tells us that armed forces can be historically successful, outwardly impressive in peacetime, and still experience catastrophic failure in war. The French army was not lacking funds, yet in 1940 it imploded. Britain in Malaya 1942 had the numbers and equipment but got swept away. All through the cold war, there was a constant fear of being overtaken that the left thought of as paranoid and psychotic but which was in fact the only rational way to go about matters of life and death.
El Gordo, I don't think the public really cares about that region, to tell the truth... as long as they stay over there.
On the F-22s, there are 187 of them. And the production facilities will remain. It's not what the AF wanted in the 1990s, but the need has reduced since then. Also, keep in mind that there is a real mindset change toward drones.
The LCS seems like a fools errand. No one seems to think that's a good idea.
On the PC stuff, I don't know what to believe about that. The incidents seem random and rare and get blown out of proportion so quickly that it's hard to know what's true and what's fantasy.
Tyranmax
Yes and then we can skip the UN altogether just to bolster are bad boy street cred.
El Gordo
As I understand it after WWI prior to WWII we had allowed our military to go by the wayside, not keeping up with the latest technology. The nation had an isolationist bent tired from the War to End all Wars and no stomach for preparedness for war. This led our enemies to attack us in Pearl Harbor.
Even if we are still ahead of the game the Perception that we are scaling back could be causing our enemies to salivate.
It sure seems to me that Putin thinks we can be challenged and with the Chinese developing Stealth planes you never know.
Individualist, I don´t think there was a technology gap before WWII. America was able to build some of the best aircraft, guns, ships and vehicles of the era and lots of them. Our armed forces were just very small. The industrial base was there so it was possible to draft and equip a huge army and navy within two years. We were also prepared to fight battles of attrition.
Today none of that applies. By and large the army you have is the army you will have for the duration of the war.
"I don't think the public really cares about that region, to tell the truth..."
Quite understandable. Still, Iran qualifies as the main enemy in the region. If we had a serious and responsible government, they might have kept a presence in Iraq. Getting involved in a Syrian civil war AFTER we gave up all our hard won gains in Iraq makes even less sense.
True. If we aren't going to get involve in Iran, then there's no reason to get involved in Syria. This is what happens when you have no real foreign policy.
Post a Comment