Report: Pentagon reviewing military options on Syria, just in case; Update: Meanwhile, in Libya…

posted at 10:22 pm on February 8, 2012 by Allahpundit

I don’t usually draft posts in advance but tonight I’m going to get cracking on the inevitable “New Syrian government dominated by Sunni fanatics” post. It may not run for another year or two, but it’ll run.

Will The One try to get congressional approval for this, I wonder, or will he “wing it” like he did in Libya? It’s a comfort to know that if he does go the unilateral route, the left will be on the case by smiling and doing nothing.

[T]he military is beginning to look at what can be done. One of the senior U.S. officials called the effort a “scoping exercise” to see what capabilities are available given other U.S. military commitments in the region.

Both officials pointed out that this type of planning exercise is typical for the Pentagon, which would not want to be in the position of not having options for the president, if and when they are asked for…

“The Pentagon is closely monitoring developments in Syria. It wouldn’t be doing its job if it didn’t put some ideas on the table,” one of the senior U.S. officials told CNN. “But absolutely no decisions have been made on military support for Syria.”…

The military’s work to analyze potential military options for Syria has been quietly going on for several weeks, two administration officials confirm to CNN. The bulk of the analysis is being done by staff of General Mattis, who would be the senior commander if the President were to order any action.

McCain, Graham, and Lieberman issued a we-are-all-Syrians statement tonight insisting that no options should be off the table and that we should think carefully about arming the rebels. The White House has apparently ruled that out; follow the CNN link above and read down for details. Meanwhile, Turkey is offering to host an international summit on how to stop the killing and aid the opposition, replete with provocative rhetoric about how “It is not enough being an observer.” To see what Syrians in Homs, the heart of the resistance and the site of the massacre last weekend, are up against, watch the two clips below showing rockets smashing into what appear to be civilian neighborhoods. According to a witness inside the city, it’s a relentless siege with Syrian troops having executed families, including stabbing children to death, as a message to rebels in the area to stand down.

If you’re worried about the U.S. intervening and being sucked into an endless sectarian clusterfark of all against all, remind yourself that Obama’s first priority then, now, and always is his own re-election. There’s a reason why the troops were pulled from Iraq, just like there’s a reason why it seems we’re ending our combat mission in Afghanistan a year early, and neither of those reasons has to do with strategic advantage in the field. Should O make a move here, he’s not going to commit significant military resources and risk a “quagmire” narrative springing up before the big vote. His base wouldn’t care about that but independents would, so if anything ends up happening, it’ll likely be a la Libya — logistical support for a coalition force, maybe some money and weapons to forces on the ground, and possibly some air power provided there’s no real resistance from Syrian (and Iranian?) missiles.

As for the merits of intervention, look at it this way: Apart from the humanitarian interest in stopping Assad from bayoneting more kids, the odds are exceedingly high that he’s on his way out. The public is way past the point of no return in the fierceness of its opposition, and according to one top military defector, the Syrian army is much weaker than thought and could implode at any time. (Judge for yourself whether that’s propaganda to make western countries think intervention would be a cakewalk.) If regime change is assured, then the White House naturally is thinking of how to ingratiate itself with the new regime — especially since Syria, unlike Libya, is the fulcrum of regional power and possibly a path to regime change in Iran too. Given the sort of Islamist nuts who will end up replacing Assad, any influence we earn later by intervening now will be weak and grudging. But some influence is better than none, especially if it can be done on the cheap, with little risk to U.S. servicemen, and in coordination with Turkey and Europe.

Or at least, that’s how the White House will argue it. Your exit question: Would U.S. intervention in Syria actually make things worse by enticing Iran and Hezbollah to increase their own presence there in a true proxy war? Shooting down U.S. aircraft would be a propaganda coup for them since they know how nervous Obama would be about continuing the mission if it turned dangerous. There’s also a risk of Russia increasing arms sales to Assad to help him repel the western coalition. Not only would they make money doing that, but it would send a message on Putin’s (and China’s) behalf that eastern powers aren’t thrilled with the idea of westerners encouraging grassroots protest movements against harsh authoritarian regimes. Like, say, Putin’s and China’s.

Update: No sooner had I hit “publish” than this story appeared on the Times’s website. I guess I’ll get cracking on the “New Syrian government struggles to restrain militias” draft too:

The country that witnessed the Arab world’s most sweeping revolution is foundering. So is its capital, where a semblance of normality has returned after the chaotic days of the fall of Tripoli last August. But no one would consider a city ordinary where militiamen tortured to death an urbane former diplomat two weeks ago, where hundreds of refugees deemed loyal to Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi waited hopelessly in a camp and where a government official acknowledged that “freedom is a problem.” Much about the scene on Wednesday was lamentable, perhaps because the discord was so commonplace…

The militias are proving to be the scourge of the revolution’s aftermath. Though they have dismantled most of their checkpoints in the capital, they remain a force, here and elsewhere. A Human Rights Watch researcher estimated there are 250 separate militias in the coastal city of Misurata, the scene of perhaps the fiercest battle of the revolution. In recent months those militias have become the most loathed in the country.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Unfreakingbelievable.

JohnGalt23 on February 8, 2012 at 10:25 PM

Contingency plans concerning most world actors is the job of the Pentagon. Is this news?

tom daschle concerned on February 8, 2012 at 10:25 PM

Waitwaitwaitwait… let’s get involved in another middle eastern hell hole so that we can overthrow a dictator and help a theocracy take over? How about we pass. Just. This. Once.

Living4Him5534 on February 8, 2012 at 10:27 PM

he’s not going to commit significant military resources and risk a “quagmire” narrative springing up before the big vote.

just as long as he’s done with this in “days not weeks” before his big gala then all should be cool. And, oh yes, the US shouldn’t necessarily “be taking the lead” and will certainly “work with the international community” for “human rights” and all of the other happy horsesh!t buzzwords and phrases.

wash…rinse…spit ….repeat.

you own him liberals. This time next year when President r.Money or President Santorum is raining Tomahawks down on some sh!thole, we don’t want to hear a friggin’ peep from you and you’re damn right that we’ll station a drone squadron over your hooch.

ted c on February 8, 2012 at 10:32 PM

As Libya taught us – rebels will lie their asses off to get power, so they can murder the former regime and their families.

If Syrians are really overwhelmingly against the regime, then they don’t need help. If they’re not, we have no business helping them.

Rebar on February 8, 2012 at 10:32 PM

After protests in Cairo, Obama very quickly demanded that Egypt’s Mubarak, a US ally, step down, even though Mubarak was fully allowing the protests against him.
The overthrow led to a radical-dominated parliament, persecution of other faiths, widespread violence, and 19 Americans now detained with under threat of imprisonment.

Yet anti-US Syria has been gunning down protesters for about a year, & Obama only now is pulling out our people (the Saudis pulled theirs six months ago), & Obama only recently called for Syrian regime change.

Way to have your priorities straight, Mr President.

itsnotaboutme on February 8, 2012 at 10:32 PM

Obama emerged from the Well.

He is the one Ahmadinejad has been waiting for.

/

tom daschle concerned on February 8, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Given the sort of Islamist nuts who will end up replacing Assad, any influence we earn later by intervening now will be weak and grudging. But some influence is better than none, especially if it can be done on the cheap, with little risk to U.S. servicemen, and in coordination with Turkey and Europe.

I suppose you’re right, Allah, but still this just doesn’t seem like a good idea. For a Godless atheist, you really are a humanitarian, though. :-)

cynccook on February 8, 2012 at 10:33 PM

As Libya taught us – rebels will lie their asses off to get power, so they can murder the former regime and their families.

If Syrians are really overwhelmingly against the regime, then they don’t need help. If they’re not, we have no business helping them.

Rebar on February 8, 2012 at 10:32 PM

We should have encouraged the revolution in non-military ways a year ago.

The same for Iran.

But we’ve done nothing.

itsnotaboutme on February 8, 2012 at 10:34 PM

Kinetic

Jeddite on February 8, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Your exit question: Would U.S. intervention in Syria actually make things worse by enticing Iran and Hezbollah to increase their own presence there in a true proxy war?

Great Idea! Saleem, ready our stash of unused EFPs that we didn’t get the chance to blow off in Iraq and Afghanistan.
/overheard in Iranian Quds Battalion

ted c on February 8, 2012 at 10:35 PM

the muslim brotherhood must need help there too…great…

thedevilinside on February 8, 2012 at 10:36 PM

They need to come up with a plan to deal with the Egyptian hostage crisis first. Can Hot air put one of those counters on their site that counts the days the hostages have been held?

paulsur on February 8, 2012 at 10:36 PM

Assad’s actions are pure evil, take him out!

DBear on February 8, 2012 at 10:37 PM

Obama’s “Arab Spring” paying of in dividends, isn’t it?

portlandon on February 8, 2012 at 10:38 PM

More war? Sure, why not? #whyeventry.

libfreeordie on February 8, 2012 at 10:39 PM

he’s not going to commit significant military resources and risk a “quagmire” narrative springing up before the big vote.

Would you care to define “significant”???

ted c on February 8, 2012 at 10:39 PM

Sure, lets complete the Caliphate.

Bmore on February 8, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Given the sort of Islamist nuts who will end up replacing Assad, any influence we earn later by intervening now will be weak and grudging.

Is there any other type of influence that this WH can put together? I can’t think of any either…..

ted c on February 8, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Obama is waiting to see what everyone else is going to do and then he will lead from the rear with a magnanimous(in his mind) teleprompter speech.

Wigglesworth on February 8, 2012 at 10:43 PM

So, what does Russia have to say about possible American intervention? Syria is Russia’s puppet with regards to the desire to destroy Israel.

tom daschle concerned on February 8, 2012 at 10:44 PM

After protests in Cairo, Obama very quickly demanded that Egypt’s Mubarak, a US ally, step down, even though Mubarak was fully allowing the protests against him.
The overthrow led to a radical-dominated parliament, persecution of other faiths, widespread violence, and 19 Americans now detained with under threat of imprisonment.

itsnotaboutme on February 8, 2012 at 10:32 PM

All part of the plan. Those 19 American’s will become Obama’s “Iran Hostage Crisis”. They’ll all be released a week prior to the election.

Let me know if my tinfoil hat is too tight.

JPeterman on February 8, 2012 at 10:45 PM

This is bound to end well.

CorporatePiggy on February 8, 2012 at 10:46 PM

I think the best strategy is to look at what Iran wants and work to get the opposite result.

Wigglesworth on February 8, 2012 at 10:47 PM

allah is spot on in the opener. That’s what Obama is aiming for while not appearing to do it overtly.

ted c on February 8, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Let the Arabs spring for this “revolution”.

Rotating out a secular despot and bringing in a theocratic despot is trading a trapdoor spider for a prowling tiger.

profitsbeard on February 8, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Winning!

BallisticBob on February 8, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Free the hostages!

paulsur on February 8, 2012 at 10:50 PM

Obama’s “Arab Spring” paying of in dividends, isn’t it?

portlandon on February 8, 2012 at 10:38 PM

It’s working so well in Egypt…JugEars will want a Syrian Spring!

KOOLAID2 on February 8, 2012 at 10:51 PM

oh yes, looks like Libya went from being a sh!thole run by a psychopath, to merely a sh!thole wracked in anarchy.

Change…..

ted c on February 8, 2012 at 10:53 PM

So Obama wants to start another war, this time right before the elections ?
I wonder why ?

burrata on February 8, 2012 at 10:54 PM

and, oh, if we intervened in such an important place like Libya (er, did I say that), now are considering Syria…. why couldn’t we have at least given our most hefty act of international gravitas….ie, a speech, in/around the time that Neda got shot in the chest and bled to death in Iran. That’s some deafening silence, yo.

ted c on February 8, 2012 at 10:55 PM

Is Obama gonna give another speech in Cairo ?

William Amos on February 8, 2012 at 10:56 PM

I don’t think there has ever been a war McCain didn’t like. With that said, I think we should round up all the new “neocon” liberals and drop them in Syria, and let them fight.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 8, 2012 at 10:58 PM

Is Obama gonna give another speech in Cairo ?

William Amos on February 8, 2012 at 10:56 PM

He would be wise to phone it in…

Electrongod on February 8, 2012 at 10:58 PM

So Obama wants to start another war, this time right before the elections ?
I wonder why ?

burrata on February 8, 2012 at 10:54 PM

Wag the Dog.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 8, 2012 at 10:59 PM

“The country that witnessed the Arab world’s most sweeping revolution is foundering.”

That’s the problem with “Leading from behind”…

… When you support the bloody over throw of the old boss, without a plan to support the new boss, you get what you paid for.

“liberal interventionists”

Works every time…

/

Seven Percent Solution on February 8, 2012 at 10:59 PM

A Human Rights Watch researcher estimated there are 250 separate militias in the coastal city of Misurata

I sure hope we get some newly minted d!ck beatin’ community organizers over there to get them homeboys unionized with some healthcare, education for they kids and a pamphlet to limit their salt intake courtesy of Bloomberg or somethin. We can’t have any hypertension running around now can we.///

ted c on February 8, 2012 at 11:00 PM

More war? Sure, why not? #whyeventry.

libfreeordie on February 8, 2012 at 10:39 PM

Uh huh.

Is this the Hope or the Change? #youvotedforObamasoownit

Bishop on February 8, 2012 at 11:00 PM

No more using our military to further the “Arab Spring.” No more Libyas. No more reckless military misadventures in support of our enemy. Eventually we could get into real trouble, and if assaulting Syria really made sense, we already played our intervention card pointlessly in Libya.

anotherJoe on February 8, 2012 at 11:01 PM

obama has waited all this long just because he was looking for “who’s ass to kick”….

motives.

ted c on February 8, 2012 at 11:01 PM

As long as his motives are pure, it’s all good…/

ted c on February 8, 2012 at 11:02 PM

Wag the Dog.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 8, 2012 at 10:59 PM

Yep.

Rational Thought on February 8, 2012 at 11:05 PM

Uh huh.

Is this the Hope or the Change? #youvotedforObamasoownit

Bishop on February 8, 2012 at 11:00 PM

And he will be voting for Obama again no matter how many wars Obama starts and how many drones he drops. His motives are pure.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 8, 2012 at 11:05 PM

Zerohedge (debkafile) already reports British and Qatari units assisting the rebels in Syria.

journeyintothewhirlwind on February 8, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Bashar — like butchering father, like butchering son.

Conservchik on February 8, 2012 at 11:11 PM

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/foreign-troops-enter-syria

Isn’t that the same setup as Libya? We found out the British units were there first and then found out some of our folks were on the ground?

journeyintothewhirlwind on February 8, 2012 at 11:13 PM

we shouldn’t get involved

golembythehudson on February 8, 2012 at 11:21 PM

Muslims killing Muslims. The best we could do is sell them more cheap outdated firearms and declare a nationwide popcorn sale.

Archivarix on February 8, 2012 at 11:24 PM

think long term, Turkey is trying to revive their ottoman empire, Erdogan stated this in his re-election victory speech, if we aid Turkey and the Muslim Brotherhood in overthrowing Assad we’ll replace an Iranian shia axis with a sunni Muslim Brotherhood/Turkey caliphate that will stretch from Western Africa all the way to Eurasia uninterrupted (save for Israel), the best thing to do is to let them slug it out and hope the winner loses enough manpower that they will be to demoralized to confront the west or Israel

golembythehudson on February 8, 2012 at 11:27 PM

Interesting to see the same people who argued invading Iraq was going to remove the brutal dictator and give Iraqi’s freedom, now argue the opposite.

Well not really interesting at all.

I didn’t believe you then either.

However, since this is the party of religious tolerance, personal freedom, and responsibility, I’m sure you can all agree that these countries can now rise or fall on their own.

No longer can they legitimately claim they are being repressed by western puppets.

No longer will the western puppets stoke this resentment to deflect from their own tyranny.

No longer will zealots be bribed to attack the west from the mosque instead of the regime.

These are good thing for republican ideals.

Muslim factions are no longer united against a common enemy.

Worst case they are too busy fighting each other to worry about us or Israel.

Best case they are too busy arguing amongst themselves about creating functioning modern governments to worry about us and Israel.

Where are the republicans who championed the Iraq war?

Where are the Hot Gasers who claim Obama is just reaping the benefits of Bush’s FP?

All this hypocrisy isn’t simply explained as anti Muslim bigotry is it?

freshface on February 8, 2012 at 11:27 PM

Is it just me or does Obama do a lot of killing for a Nobel Peace Prize winner?

Chuck Schick on February 8, 2012 at 11:31 PM

Sure. Our national interests are so compelling in Syria…

And if it pumps up the bleeding heart vote and us nasty warlike neocon rightwingers, it’s a political winner, right?

And ~THEN~ they’ll like us, the mideast Muslims will really, really like us this time.

Like the Libyans and Egyptians do.

jodetoad on February 8, 2012 at 11:31 PM

Sure, lets complete the Caliphate.

Bmore on February 8, 2012 at 10:41 PM

That won’t happen until after Syria. Jordan and Israel ain’t gonna topple themselves y’know.

abobo on February 8, 2012 at 11:34 PM

No sooner had I hit “publish” than this story appeared on the Times’s website. I guess I’ll get cracking on the “New Syrian government struggles to restrain militias” draft too:

Anyone, please name, I triple dare you, a free, or freer, populace, due to Obama.

Schadenfreude on February 8, 2012 at 11:36 PM

By Oct. the topic of “economy” will not even be on the radar. It’s all going to be foreign policy.

Schadenfreude on February 8, 2012 at 11:37 PM

Here’s an option: Let them all fight and die until none are left.

It seems to me the bottom video was clearly showing the results of an ongoing mortar attack- in other words, those firing the shells were taping it. Humanitarian crisis? Nope. Just one more radical Islamic sect trying to eliminate another. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of scumbags.

BKeyser on February 8, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Syrian troops having executed families, including stabbing children to death, as a message to rebels in the area to stand down.

A regular Srebrenica or Haditha I’m sure but we may never know. What with excited Muslims tendency to exaggerate and fib on such occasions.

any influence we earn later by intervening now will be weak and grudging. But some influence is better than none,

Influence with the Muslims. Sounds like a plan, what do they need? Air portable girls schools and battered goat sanctuaries?

You can never buy Muslims, you can raggedly rent them for a season til they find better pay. Your influence depends on boatloads of cash, weaponry and being buggered without even the least chance of expecting a meaningful reach-a-round. Islam will take you into Syria in some form and the new freedom fighters will win on the Western dime. But it is to be expected. It would be worse than racist to watch Islam injure itself so without interceding on behalf of freedom,justice and yada yada yada. That is what you do when you don’t know what you are doing or what you are dealing with.

BL@KBIRD on February 8, 2012 at 11:44 PM

All this hypocrisy isn’t simply explained as anti Muslim bigotry is it?

freshface on February 8, 2012 at 11:27 PM

Bush went to congress and got broad bipartisan support for his wars, 0bama just goes and bombs the hell out of countries because… err… because he’s king or something.

Hypocrisy indeed.

Rebar on February 8, 2012 at 11:49 PM

Rebar on February 8, 2012 at 11:49 PM

I guess that explains it all.

Thanks for the reply.

freshface on February 8, 2012 at 11:51 PM

Obama has a way of getting rid of dictators without a single American troop on the ground. He proved that with Libya

liberal4life on February 9, 2012 at 12:03 AM

Anyone, please name, I triple dare you, a free, or freer, populace, due to Obama.

Schadenfreude on February 8, 2012 at 11:36 PM

Well, Muslims are free to be Muslims. There is that. If you are comparing him to Bush, W freed his fair share of Muslims to be Muslims too. Just more drawn out and costly.

BL@KBIRD on February 9, 2012 at 12:08 AM

Obama has a way of getting rid of dictators without a single American troop on the ground. He proved that with Libya
liberal4life on February 9, 2012 at 12:03 AM

…and replace them with violent militias who torture diplomats to death.

Chuck Schick on February 9, 2012 at 12:11 AM

freshface on February 8, 2012 at 11:27 PM

Let’s have a round of applause for the poignant wisdom of youth.

BL@KBIRD on February 9, 2012 at 12:15 AM

Just great. More American troops to die for muslims. The Pentagon is becoming the Grand Mosque.

RasThavas on February 9, 2012 at 1:08 AM

So, what does Russia have to say about possible American intervention? Syria is Russia’s puppet with regards to the desire to destroy Israel.

tom daschle concerned on February 8, 2012 at 10:44 PM

I’ve argued this elsewhere, but Russia is not even really a Great Power anymore. People step gingerly around them because of lingering Cold War memories and because of their nuclear arsenal; that’s it. A country that is unable to conquer a small nation on their doorstep like Georgia is out of gas, plain and simple.

No more using our military to further the “Arab Spring.” No more Libyas. No more reckless military misadventures in support of our enemy. Eventually we could get into real trouble, and if assaulting Syria really made sense, we already played our intervention card pointlessly in Libya.

anotherJoe on February 8, 2012 at 11:01 PM

The thing is, Syria’s already an Islamic dictatorship – they host the head of Hamas, for example. It literally could not get any worse there really if a new Islamist took power, so we might as well roll the dice. It’s clear that we would derive short term gains from it and seriously cripple Iran’s influence in the Middle East.

Furthermore I think an direct intervention is going to be unnecessary – we’ve been squeezing them for a year already in various ways and the regime is clearly breaking down. Iran too. There is clearly someone different in charge of foreign policy since the Libyan adventure. This strikes me more as rhetoric to put more pressure on the Assad regime.

Let’s be clear about something too. In Libya, the target was basically a harmless dictator. The opponent here is a real enemy of the US who has been causing problems for us for years. Are we going to complain about Iran or North Korea too if they get toppled? At a certain point regimes get so bad/hostile to the US that they need to go, and Syria and Iran passed that point years ago.

All this hypocrisy isn’t simply explained as anti Muslim bigotry is it?

freshface on February 8, 2012 at 11:27 PM

Yes, that’s it, it’s all racism. It couldn’t possibly be because Obama’s foreign policy, until very recently, has been run by incompetent dolts who require servants to tie their shoes for them in the morning. Really, liberal foreign policy has been so bad it’s been a huge gift to Ron Paul types who want to close every single military base and effectively disband the military.

Doomberg on February 9, 2012 at 1:11 AM

Sure. Our national interests are so compelling in Syria…

And if it pumps up the bleeding heart vote and us nasty warlike neocon rightwingers, it’s a political winner, right?

And ~THEN~ they’ll like us, the mideast Muslims will really, really like us this time.

Like the Libyans and Egyptians do.

jodetoad on February 8, 2012 at 11:31 PM

They actually are. Syria is a key sponsor of terrorism and Hezzbollah and has been causing problems for us and for Israel for decades. Come on, most of us who were here through the last decade should know this. For crying out loud, the Iranians have sent in the Quds Force to try to save Assad.

We aren’t doing this to make “Muslims like us.” Syria is an enemy of the United States and a de-facto Islamic dictatorship – at worst we’ll get an equally new regime which is weaker, with serious curtailed power and influence.

Doomberg on February 9, 2012 at 1:14 AM

“The Pentagon is closely monitoring developments in Syria. It wouldn’t be doing its job if it didn’t put some ideas on the table

How about putting forward the idea of staying out of internecine muslim squabbles for a change. And how about this for an idea – someone should hit those peckerwoods at the Pentagon over the head with a table.

VorDaj on February 9, 2012 at 1:15 AM

Syria is an enemy of the United States and a de-facto Islamic dictatorship – at worst we’ll get an equally new regime which is weaker, with serious curtailed power and influence.

Doomberg on February 9, 2012 at 1:14 AM

Assad is an Alawite who are a minority in Syria. That means he can and will only go so far in pushing popular Muslim (anti-western) sentiments because most of those Muslims in Syria are Sunni who are now in revolt. He used terror and radicalism as a tool just like the Saudi’s do. The Saud family is a different kettle of fish than Al Qaeda or the Iranians who are true believers. A Sunni majority in charge of Syria would result in a blood bath for the Alawites, Christians, and the Druze. They would be far more likely to support terrorism and possibly attack Israel than Assad would.

sharrukin on February 9, 2012 at 1:27 AM

You guys do realize Syria is one of the largest state sponsors of terrorism against Israel and the United States in the world right now? There’s no reason to warn about fanatics taking over when the current lot is batshit crazy, not to mention Sunni’s in power would destroy Iran’s strongest alliance and push back Russia’s influence in the Middle East.

timbok on February 9, 2012 at 1:49 AM

After listening to that “child” operating the camera, I would prefer that we leave them be.

Don’t any of those so-called adults have any independent thoughts? He could have just used a “laughter track” recording.

OldEnglish on February 9, 2012 at 2:03 AM

timbok on February 9, 2012 at 1:49 AM

Either Syria will get taken over by the muslem brotherhood and Incorporated into the reforged caliphate – or it will become a client state of Turkey, which puts the Turks, and their effective military, onto Israel’s border.

Neither of those outcomes are good.

Rebar on February 9, 2012 at 2:27 AM

I think dinnerjacket has been instructing asshat in syria to do exactly what he’s doing, in hopes that we get personally involved so that midgetdinnerjacket can put some dead Americans on display.

Obama will fall for it at some level. I say let them cook in their own soup. The place is disintegrating and Iran will blow apart next…exactly what the moolahs want to happen.

DumbObama is going to screw this up. Just watch.

Wolfmoon on February 9, 2012 at 2:31 AM

Either Syria will get taken over by the muslem brotherhood and Incorporated into the reforged caliphate – or it will become a client state of Turkey, which puts the Turks, and their effective military, onto Israel’s border.

Neither of those outcomes are good.

Rebar on February 9, 2012 at 2:27 AM

The Turks on Israel’s border, while not the absolute best outcome, is a huge improvement over the current state of affairs with the Iranians effectively on Israel’s border.

Doomberg on February 9, 2012 at 3:49 AM

“These wars are cool only if my guy starts them.” – HotAir reader

Notorious GOP on February 9, 2012 at 5:12 AM

…where a government official acknowledged that “freedom is a problem.”

Now they’re on track in Libya. Full credit to Obama.

forest on February 9, 2012 at 5:28 AM

Isn’t the Bekka valley in Syria where it was thought that many of saddam’s stockpiles of WMD ended up just before the Iraq war? Maybe this is Obama’s chance to get some special forces on the ground in there and vindicate Bush once and for all.

Hahahahahaha….just kidding.

Youngs98 on February 9, 2012 at 6:01 AM

Another war.

Wondering when Obama will step on China’s or Russia’s toe by accident somehow and they’ll confront us.

JellyToast on February 9, 2012 at 6:24 AM

Sewing the seeds for the Great Caliphate…one Arab Spring at a time…thank you, Hussein Obama.

coldwarrior on February 9, 2012 at 6:44 AM

7th February 2012
Thousands of Marines storm U.S. beaches as Operation Bold Alligator sees biggest amphibious landing for a decade

20,000 troops from eight countries take part in massive amphibious landing exercise in North Carolina and Virginia
Exercise sees fictional country of Amber invaded by army from neighbouring Garnet
Week-long operation will also see air raids on enemy ‘forts’ and counter-insurgency tactics

Shiny_Tiara on February 9, 2012 at 6:54 AM

Good move Obama, drastically weaken the military’s force structure then go to war with Syria. And by the way, have all the weak kneed generals suddenly lost both their voices and their gonads?

rplat on February 9, 2012 at 7:55 AM

Kinetic

Jeddite on February 8, 2012 at 10:35 PM

This is it right here. The Pentagon thinks it can apply their savvy lingo to conflict. It rarely applies and just makes them look foolish.

Except for Israel, the whole of the middle east cares little about life. It surrendered to death the moment it accepted the disease of Islam.

LaughterJones on February 9, 2012 at 8:00 AM

Maybe it’s best we stay out of this one. Oh wait! there’s a Democrat in office and and we have an opportunity to go to war with absolutely ZERO national interest involved…Let’s go for it!

Tomolena1 on February 9, 2012 at 8:39 AM

Gee, let’s have a show of hands: How many Libyans today want to move to sunny Syria?

Massacre in Syria: “I saw bodies of women and children lying on roads beheaded

Terp Mole on February 9, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Bears repeating (again).

Our Libyan-Contras’ Mussolini moment is a LONG overdue triumph for the Reagan Doctrine.

Post-Bush/Blair, it took EU conservatives (Cameron, Sarkozy, Berlusconi, Merkel) to successfully revive the Reagan Doctrine by arming and supporting Libyan-Contras.

American conservatives should focus on congratulating our heroic NATO airmen (and our new Libyan allies) for a job well done– and ignore the predictably impotent handwringing of the nattering naybobs of negativity.

He counted on America to be passive. He counted wrong.”

God bless Ronald Reagan and our heroic NATO airmen.

Terp Mole on February 9, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Continued the war in Iraq long after he said he would, extended the effort in Afghanistan, active operations attacking Pakistan, U.S. took on the heavy lifting…without the leadership…in Libya and then there are our military operations in Yemen and Somalia. Now we’re planning on going after Syria…after we exhaust all non-military options? Man, this guy is making Bush look like a freakin’ Ghandi! Are there any nations in the middle east that we are not or have not yet attacked? Oh yeah, Iran. The ONLY real threat to world peace at the moment.

Before 9/11, people in the middle east had no rational reason to hate America other than our support of Isreal. Now, they not only have that, but they may just also have another, more rational reason. We’re bombing the living crap out of every nation over there and in Northern Africa.

PorchDawg on February 9, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Let them kill each other, then go in and kill the rest.

rjulio on February 9, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Conflict breeds distrust, when alliances are weak, the worse it gets.

Tribes will never be trustful. Again, ‘democracy’ or whatever bs you want, is irrelevent to this culture. Accept stability. Consistancy is what matters most here.

John Kettlewell on February 9, 2012 at 7:57 PM