Carney: Why no, our response to Syria has nothing to do with the regime change we’ve demanded since 2011

posted at 2:01 pm on August 27, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

Doesn’t this sound a little … familiar? Over two years ago, the Obama administration repeatedly insisted that its intervention in Libya to keep Moammar Qaddafi’s army from overrunning Benghazi was not about regime change, either, and insisted that Libyans had to decide their future for themselves.  The resulting NATO intervention then bombed Qaddafi’s army all the way back to Tripoli and continued the bombardment until Qaddafi’s regime collapsed — leaving a failed state in its wake, and open operation for al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist networks to operate.

But this time, it’s different:

The president is consulting with leaders of Congress and allies abroad as he weighs military options such as missile strikes against Syrian military installations.

Asked if the president is contemplating the killing of Syrian leader Bashar Assad, Mr. Carney replied, “The options that we are considering are not about regime change.”

Carney’s lips says no no no, but their official policies say yes. It took months for Barack Obama to demand regime change in Syria after the civil war started, compared to eight days for American ally Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, but demand it Obama did in October 2011. Jay Carney even delivered the message:

The White House on Friday called on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to “step down now,” warning he was taking his country down a “very dangerous path.”

In a statement, spokesman Jay Carney condemned the killing of Kurdish opposition leader Meshaal Tamo as well as the beating of a prominent Syrian activist, saying it showed “again that the Assad regime’s promises for dialogue and reform are hollow.”

“The United States strongly rejects violence directed against peaceful oppositionists wherever it occurs, and stands in solidarity with the courageous people of Syria who deserve their universal rights,” Carney said.

“Today’s attacks demonstrate the Syrian regime’s latest attempts to shut down peaceful opposition inside Syria. President Assad must step down now before taking his country further down this very dangerous path.”

So far, the White House isn’t willing to publicly proclaim a timetable for the response:

They seemed pretty anxious to leak it this morning, though, and in detail:

Missile strikes against Syria could be launched “as early as Thursday,” senior U.S. officials said Tuesday as the White House intensified its push toward an international response to the suspected use of chemical weapons.

The “three days” of strikes would be limited in scope, and aimed at sending a message to Syria’s President Bashar Assad rather than degrading his military capabilities, U.S. officials told NBC News.

News on the possible timescale for military action followed another round of telephone diplomacy by President Barack Obama and his administration.

It’s good thing that “senior US officials” are willing to set the start and end dates ahead of time.  That way, Bashar al-Assad can put it on his calendar and get the e-mail reminders. I guess that’s some sort of message, but it doesn’t sound as daunting as the White House might believe, especially when partnered with double-talk about regime change.


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

*waiting for Valerie’s text *
Jay

cmsinaz on August 27, 2013 at 2:08 PM

What happens if the UN has evidence that both the Regime and the Rebels used gas? What then?

oldroy on August 27, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Assad and Putin are having a good laugh on a conference call right about now!!

Deano1952 on August 27, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Prepare yourselves for massive costs and a massive failure. If you don’t completely exploit the attack and secure the objectives, then you cannot win. Furthermore, anyone that truly believes this tyrannical, terrorist regime won’t retaliate is out of their minds.

rplat on August 27, 2013 at 2:13 PM

What happens if the UN has evidence that both the Regime and the Rebels used gas? What then?

oldroy on August 27, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Rock, Paper, Scissors

Oil Can on August 27, 2013 at 2:14 PM

It’s good thing that “senior US officials” are willing to set the start and end dates ahead of time. That way, Bashar al-Assad can put it on his calendar and get the e-mail reminders

Yeah, announcing that there is a 50% chance of cruise missiles over Damascus on Thursday and Friday but clearing up by the weekend is not military brilliance. I just don’t get “save the date” warfare.

Happy Nomad on August 27, 2013 at 2:14 PM

oldroy on August 27, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Facts have never had any effect on this administration.

Deano1952 on August 27, 2013 at 2:14 PM

The “three days” of strikes would be limited in scope, and aimed at sending a message to Syria’s President Bashar Assad rather than degrading his military capabilities, U.S. officials told NBC News.

Stupid beyond words.

Jabberwock on August 27, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Just twerk the Assad fellow.

Bmore on August 27, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Is Samantha Power back from her comedy film festival tour of Ireland yet?

Not having “Smart Power” around, Obama is clueless…

coldwarrior on August 27, 2013 at 2:23 PM

So 800,000 dead Rwandans hacked to pieces with machetes doesn’t reach the level of a few hundred dead Syrians because the Syrians were killed with poison gas?

sharrukin on August 27, 2013 at 2:23 PM

This should cause for renewed calls to see Obama’s transcripts, he clearl isn’t very bright.

Tater Salad on August 27, 2013 at 2:24 PM

My understanding is that the pharmaceutical industry in Syria has gone on full alert.

BKeyser on August 27, 2013 at 2:25 PM

The president is consulting with leaders of Congress and allies abroad as he weighs military options such as missile strikes

…but… but… “the road to Damascus is a road to peace”! Nancy Pelosi said so!

de rigueur on August 27, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Carney should burn in hell

losarkos on August 27, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Trouble No. 1,

Obama is so insecure, has such a huge ego, and so inexperianced nothing good can come of his poor disabled leadership.

Trouble No. 2.

Obama’s trouble No. 1 makes him hire and have the people around him who are only worse than he is, so down the stair case it goes.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on August 27, 2013 at 2:27 PM

So 800,000 dead Rwandans hacked to pieces with machetes doesn’t reach the level of a few hundred dead Syrians because the Syrians were killed with poison gas?

sharrukin on August 27, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Black Rwandans at that…but they were killed by Blacks so it’s OK.

oldroy on August 27, 2013 at 2:27 PM

I pay taxes hired a few folks worked hard never took a dime from Uncle Sam……..so my parents did, my wife did, I’m tired.

losarkos on August 27, 2013 at 2:27 PM

The “three days” of strikes would be limited in scope, and aimed at sending a message to Syria’s President Bashar Assad rather than degrading his military capabilities, U.S. officials told NBC News.

Omigod….that’s it?

Killing just to send a message?

Is that how America does business these days?

Not degrade Syrian capabilties?

No one can be that incredibly stupid.

And, the US official forgot to add, “We will be coming in low, just over the trees, from the northwest, at about 0630, on Thursday, Damascus local time…heading for the baby milk factory next to the rail yard next to the fork in the Damascus-Aleppo highway…give or take ten minutes or so. Depending.”

coldwarrior on August 27, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Take the keys away from this lunatic. There has been NO PROOF produced to show that it was Assad that used the chems. This chem attack is right out of the MB and AQ playbook.

/Obama’s allies???

Key West Reader on August 27, 2013 at 2:28 PM

The “three days” of strikes would be limited in scope, and aimed at sending a message to Syria’s President Bashar Assad rather than degrading his military capabilities, U.S. officials told NBC News.

Are any of these ‘officials’ actually thinking about the message that they are sending?

This is ‘stupid beyond words’ as Jabberwock correctly notes.

How did Clinton’s ‘wag the dog’ attacks work in deterring UBL? $2 million missiles blowing up $5 tents…. what message did that send? That the US was really going to be ‘tough on terrorists’? That the US was a sleeping giant that terrorists risked wakening – or a paper tiger as UBL asserted in his 1996 declaration of war against the US?

Why would Assad stop using WMD if all he will get is a light attack that isn’t intended to either get him or seriously degrade the capabilities of his military to use WMD again?

Then we have the propaganda victory – Russia, China, and Iran will all claim that their opposition (and threats) against any Western strike on Assad or Syrian military forces were the reasons why the West only undertook ‘token’ steps. In that volatile region – who would be seen as the stronger horse?

Also in the middle is Israel. They aren’t participating in this – but if a Western strike in Syria causes an escalation where Iran / Hizbollah attack Israel – do the Israelis really think that Obama will have their backs?

Barack Obama, a Nobel Peace Prize winner (for doing basically nothing) is going to be exposed as a complete incompetent – just as he is with regards to economics.

Athos on August 27, 2013 at 2:29 PM

Democrat Party and the MSM problem No. 1.

They fear when and if this gas is found the lable will read

“Made in Iraq by Sadam Hussain” Shiping lable will read “Via Russian Trucking Inc.”

lies have a way of finding home given time

APACHEWHOKNOWS on August 27, 2013 at 2:30 PM

Black Rwandans at that…but they were killed by Blacks so it’s OK.

Frankly with most of the progressives, and far too many of the isolationists, as long as there aren’t American’s being killed, it’s just tough on those victims.

There is little consistency on their views / willingness to undertake action on behalf of ‘human rights’. One either has principles or one does not have principles. They are not principles if they can be selectively turned off.

Athos on August 27, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Also in the middle is Israel. They aren’t participating in this – but if a Western strike in Syria causes an escalation where Iran / Hizbollah attack Israel – do the Israelis really think that Obama will have their backs?

Athos on August 27, 2013 at 2:29 PM

That is the 100 Trillion Dollar question. And will the Israelis sit things out when they are attacked? I don’t think so. Then what does Obama the Strategic thinker do?

oldroy on August 27, 2013 at 2:34 PM

What happens if the UN has evidence that both the Regime and the Rebels used gas? What then?

oldroy on August 27, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Or what if they can’t tell who did it or what “it” was? I’ll wager they come up with a big fat “duhhhhhhh!”

dogsoldier on August 27, 2013 at 2:35 PM

lies have a way of finding home given time

And even if most of the Syrian stocks are found to be originally Iraqi in manufacture – it will not stop the ‘Bush Lied’ meme….

Given that Bush 43 went to Congress for AUMF’s for both Afghanistan and Iraq – and both passed with bipartisan majorities – something that Obama failed to do re: Libya and seems unwilling to do re: the Syrian ‘message’ – I’m waiting on the outrage over Obama acting unilaterally and without UN approval.

I shan’t be holding my breath.

Athos on August 27, 2013 at 2:35 PM

Assad has certainly moved his weapon stockpiles in advance of any attack. Anyone want to bet that he doesn’t have secret underground stashes?

dogsoldier on August 27, 2013 at 2:36 PM

The “three days” of strikes would be limited in scope, and aimed at sending a message to Syria’s President Bashar Assad rather than degrading his military capabilities, U.S. officials told NBC News.

So what is the goal then? If this is what they intend to do then it is f***ing stupid beyond belief… What exactly are they going to hit if not Assad military capacity?… Just launch missiles into the empty desert of Syria?…

mnjg on August 27, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Any decision will be a bad decision.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on August 27, 2013 at 2:43 PM

So what is the goal then? If this is what they intend to do then it is f***ing stupid beyond belief… What exactly are they going to hit if not Assad military capacity?… Just launch missiles into the empty desert of Syria?…

mnjg on August 27, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Hope The President sends Syria the bill for such an extravagant fireworks display.
I don’t want to pay unless I can watch ‘em.

Jabberwock on August 27, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Any decision will be a bad decision.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on August 27, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Wanna bet that this all ends with no decision at all ?

I know that no decision is s decision in itself. But after the “no coup” coup, I would not be surprised.

Jabberwock on August 27, 2013 at 2:47 PM

The “three days” of strikes would be limited in scope, and aimed at sending a message to Syria’s President Bashar Assad rather than degrading his military capabilities, U.S. officials told NBC News.

Actually not a bad plan. Make it personal.

Instead of degrading the military or infrastructure, go after the things that make being a totalitarian dictator fun.

Bomb his private jets, his car collection, his palaces, and have the Navy Seals leave a horse head in his bed.

Sebastian on August 27, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Assad has certainly moved his weapon stockpiles in advance of any attack. Anyone want to bet that he doesn’t have secret underground stashes?

dogsoldier on August 27, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Even if we know where are the chemical weapons we cannot bomb them as they will kill thousands of people if the chemical gases are released due to bombing… The only way to punish Assad in a military strike is to degrade his military capabilities to make sure that at least he is not going to win and guarantee the current stalemate and war of attrition… If what the report is saying is true i.e. it will be a 3 days military strike without the intent of degrading Assad military capabilities then it is a very stupid move… Unless they are just saying this in public… I remember that they said similar thing in Libya where the announced that goal of the military strike was only to “protect the city of Benghazi” but yet they kept the bombing for two months until Qaddafi was dead…

mnjg on August 27, 2013 at 2:48 PM

And even if most of the Syrian stocks are found to be originally Iraqi in manufacture – it will not stop the ‘Bush Lied’ meme….

Athos on August 27, 2013 at 2:35 PM

I think most of that stuff has a short shelf life once it’s mixed up and put in a shell or container. Not sure how long, but weeks or months. I’d bet the stuff that got moved from Iraq was empty shells and precursors/ingredients.

oldroy on August 27, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Per Drudge, Iran is now fully on board.
US attacks Syria, Iran attacks Israel.

Not in any military sense, mind you. Just sending a message.

I am having flashbacks to WWI history.

Jabberwock on August 27, 2013 at 2:55 PM

And will the Israelis sit things out when they are attacked? I don’t think so. Then what does Obama the Strategic thinker do?

oldroy on August 27, 2013 at 2:34 PM

Bush barely restrained them when Iraq started lobbing Scud missiles into Israel during the invasion, and the only reason that worked was because they knew the collation would fall apart if Israel counter attacked. Obama has no chance of holding back any Israeli response if they feel threatened.

Johnnyreb on August 27, 2013 at 2:57 PM

So – we are going to hit him where he’ll know we hit him. But we’re going to leave him in place. Not degrade his military, or his WMD capabilities, and we’re going to risk a wider real war. And we’re going to tell him when we are on our way.

All the while, we are handing the keys to the Caliphate over to the MBros and Al Qaida? Do I have this right?

oldroy on August 27, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Et ah, what happened to a gentler, kinder, wonderful world. Reset? Did the Libs elect a war monger? Obama the Bad A$$?

Herb on August 27, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Per Drudge, Iran is now fully on board.
US attacks Syria, Iran attacks Israel.

Not in any military sense, mind you. Just sending a message.

I am having flashbacks to WWI history.

Jabberwock on August 27, 2013 at 2:55 PM

If Iran attacks Israel then the Iranian terrorist regime will be finished… I hope that they are that stupid to start a war with Israel… The best they can do is to order their terrorist group Hizballah to launch some rockets into Israel from Lebanon but Israel response is going to be very severe in this case…

mnjg on August 27, 2013 at 3:00 PM

Now we have all the warmongers on the left, like Eugene Robinson.

Everyone’s calling for war, Russia be damned. It’s almost as if war itself is what’s desired. “We haven’t had a good war in a long time. Libya wasn’t a war it was a kinetic military action, and Iraq was a bad war.” War, war, war!

Kind of like the sentiment that led up to World War I. There was no real reason for WWI. A whole generation had “missed out” on war. People wanted war. That’s what they got. Be careful that we don’t get the same.

anotherJoe on August 27, 2013 at 3:01 PM

Is announcing in advance that we don’t want regime change for the benefit of Russia and China? So they don’t have to respond – they can say to their ally “Just take a holiday while the US bombs and then carry on?”

kcewa on August 27, 2013 at 3:05 PM

They need to make sure that they don’t claim that regime change is necessary as a result of using chemical weapons because that would justify Bush calling for regime change in Iraq.

blink on August 27, 2013 at 2:14 PM

You forgot about the Hillary Statute of Limitations .

Barnestormer on August 27, 2013 at 3:09 PM

Per Drudge, Iran is now fully on board.
US attacks Syria, Iran attacks Israel.

Given the cutbacks, the attrition, sequester and all sorts of other costs and constraints on our current armed forces…taking out Iran is not a slam dunk…not even close.

All Iran has to do is unleash a lot of folks from Beirut to Kuala Lampur, Caracas to Cairo, and a lot of points in between and we can end up in a nine-line bind before we know it…and so could a number of countries that are our putative allies.

Procrastination, making public threats then calling for folks to not call his bluff…robbing the military to pay for social programs and green energy schemes, then casually tossing the military out there to get his bacon out of the fire, send Assad a message…taking hundreds of millions away from military training programs and giving Hamas $500 million walking around money…and the list goes on.

One could easily get the impression the buffoon in the Oval Office hasn’t a clue. Thought he was the smartest president evah.

He built this current mess.

coldwarrior on August 27, 2013 at 3:12 PM

He built this current mess.

coldwarrior on August 27, 2013 at 3:12 PM

Yes he did. And Underlined it with a “Red Line”. Much to his dismay.

Jabberwock on August 27, 2013 at 3:18 PM

This disjoint foreign policy is what happens when the golf marathon is occasionally and repeatedly interrupted by these pesky, petty world events.

Tsar of Earth on August 27, 2013 at 3:24 PM

The “three days” of strikes would be limited in scope, and aimed at sending a message to Syria’s President Bashar Assad rather than degrading his military capabilities, U.S. officials told NBC News.

Has Bambi tried a simple message on a phone call? Or shouldn’t he HAVE to?

I just heard there is no attempt to target Assad either. Dumb and dumber on drugs.

marybel on August 27, 2013 at 3:26 PM

I’m waiting for the UN approval before the strikes. You know, the one that The One and other Democrats say is essential before any military action. Just like the one they got before moving on Libya. Wait… Never mind.

GoodAg77 on August 27, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Wasn’t all that long ago when Hillary was heralding Assad as a reformer, a progressive, good for the region.

Guess that is why she had to be replaced.

coldwarrior on August 27, 2013 at 3:49 PM

The “three days” of strikes would be limited in scope, and aimed at sending a message to Syria’s President Bashar Assad rather than degrading his military capabilities, U.S. officials told NBC News.

How do you bomb for three days and not degrade military capabilities when that is what you are targeting?

This admin’s Orwellian doublespeak continues.

Generalissimo Dear Leader Commander-in-Chief Comrade O, Bin Laden Slayer, won’t be targeting anyplace “civilians” might be, will he?

It’s good thing that “senior US officials” are willing to set the start and end dates ahead of time.

Why not give them targeting coordinates ahead of time, too?

Then it would be fairly easy to bomb for three days and not degrade Assad’s military capability, basically putting on a high tech fireworks display and demolition demonstration. That’ll teach Assad a lesson, right? Until the “collateral damage” videos and photos start showing up.

farsighted on August 27, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Wonder what happens if Assad is accidentally killed?

oldroy on August 27, 2013 at 4:26 PM

Wasn’t all that long ago when Hillary was heralding Assad as a reformer, a progressive, good for the region.

Guess that is why she had to be replaced.

coldwarrior on August 27, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Not just Hil, from April 2012: Vogue Deletes Glamour Story on Assad’s Wife

slickwillie2001 on August 27, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Omigod….that’s it?

Killing just to send a message?

Is that how America does business these days?

coldwarrior on August 27, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Bill Clinton was the same. No, I take that back: Clinton was better. He held town halls to try and win support for a bombing campaign on Iraq with literally no other purpose than to “send a message”. But when he realized there was no public support for it and he couldn’t create any, Clinton backed off.

Killing people en masse just to send a message is standard leftist practice and has been since Lenin.

It’s just that Obama is more reckless and more stupid than Clinton. That’s all that’s changed lately.

David Blue on August 27, 2013 at 4:38 PM

Per Drudge, Iran is now fully on board.
US attacks Syria, Iran attacks Israel.

Not in any military sense, mind you. Just sending a message.

I am having flashbacks to WWI history.

Jabberwock on August 27, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Who’s up for a little escalation?

Let’s see now. We have Syria, Russia, China, and Iran lined up on one side.

France and Britain are on the other side. With Comrade O bringing the US population kicking and screaming to stay out of Syria. Thank God we have the French on our side this time. And al Qaeda is basically on this side, too, more or less, as cheerleaders, vultures, and hyenas hoping to kill off a weakened Assad.

Iran wants to bring Israel in after the kick-off. That puts al Qaeda and Israel on the same side, doesn’t it?

Those are the major players in the increasingly mucked up Muslim world mess in the Middle East. Yes, it’s time we got more involved in the region than we have been after abandoning Iraq to its fate, helping to topple Mubarak and replace him with the Muslim Brotherhood, and turning Gaddafi’s Libya into a failed state overrun by jihadists. Right?

Good thing Dear Leader knows what he’s doing.

Has Germany or Japan weighed in yet? After being out of the game for about 65 years they might want to play, too.

Our Nobel Peace Prize winning Dear Leader sure is bringing everyone together and forcing them to pick sides, isn’t he?

farsighted on August 27, 2013 at 4:50 PM

f

arsighted on August 27, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Another point of view is Sunni v Shia.

Turkey and SA are all for an attack.

Guess we are with the Sunni.

Jabberwock on August 27, 2013 at 5:13 PM

Just wondering, where is AllahPundit? Middle Eastern war drums and bombast from Peter King are his wheelhouse!

Lawdawg86 on August 27, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Another point of view is Sunni v Shia.

Turkey and SA are all for an attack.

Guess we are with the Sunni.

Jabberwock on August 27, 2013 at 5:13 PM

I wonder which side Iraq is on.

I think I’ll put them 2/3 on the side of Syria, Russia, China, and Iran and 1/3 on the side of France, Britain, the US, Israel, and al Qaeda.

It’s getting even more messy.

Good thing Dear Leader knows exactly what he is doing.

farsighted on August 27, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Why not give them targeting coordinates ahead of time, too?

Then it would be fairly easy to bomb for three days and not degrade Assad’s military capability, basically putting on a high tech fireworks display and demolition demonstration. That’ll teach Assad a lesson, right? Until the “collateral damage” videos and photos start showing up.

farsighted on August 27, 2013 at 4:16 PM

I’m all for a pyrotechnics display Holywood-style, this way Obozo saves face (plus he can then brag to his lefty cheerleader turds that he ‘bombed’ Assad) and the Pentagon saves ammo and missiles for some real war…I mean, why not, our idiot of a president wouldn’t know the difference anyways.

jimver on August 27, 2013 at 5:59 PM

farsighted on August 27, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Here, this completes your analysis of the ME and its self-induced plight :)

jimver on August 27, 2013 at 6:03 PM

mnjg on August 27, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Assad will hide and reserve his equipment and his soldiers. Maybe even put civilians in locations formerly occupied by the military to really embarrass us when we bomb them.

We have no good military option there. If, and I really mean if, we can evac some Christians, that is all we should do.

Michele McPhee made a good point on WRKO tonight. Remember everyone, the same people telling us Assad gassed his people are the ones who blamed Benghazi on a youtube clip and locked up an innocent man.

THEY -L I E-

dogsoldier on August 27, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Good thing Dear Leader knows exactly what he is doing.

farsighted on August 27, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Only when ordering shrimp.

dogsoldier on August 27, 2013 at 6:48 PM

The “three days” of strikes would be limited in scope, and aimed at sending a message to Syria’s President Bashar Assad

This is so F’n stupid.

Clinton sent such a “message” to al Qaeda, Afghanistan, and Sudan in 1998. It accomplished nothing.

Al Qaeda struck again. The USS Cole in 2000 and the US on 9/11/2001. And we ended up invading Afghanistan. We are still there.

Clinton sent such a “message” to Saddam in 1998. It accomplished nothing. Saddam went on to continue corrupting and undermining UN resolutions, defying the no-fly zones, supporting Palestinian terrorists, and starving his own people. Because there were no longer inspectors there no one knew what the hell he was doing with WMDs. We all know where that led. We ended up invading Iraq to topple Saddam.

So what exactly does Dear Leader think he is going to accomplish?

I am beginning to think he is behaving exactly as Assad, the Iranians, and the Russians want him to behave. IOW, Assad deliberately provoked Comrade O. If that is true, Assad, the Iranians, and Putin are already thinking several moves ahead.

What happens if Dear Leader sends his three day “message” of pyrotechnics, and Assad turns around and uses chemical weapons again? What happens if after the three day show is over Russia and China quickly step up their military aid and support for Assad? What id Iran and Putin decide to send their own boots on the ground to Syria. And so on and so forth. I’m sure there are many other options open to Russia, China, and Iran. What does Comrade O do then?

farsighted on August 27, 2013 at 8:07 PM

farsighted on August 27, 2013 at 8:07 PM

There are a number of Russian air bases, with long range transport, close to major army bases all around the Black Sea, to include in the northwestern part of what was once part of Georgia. All within a few hours flight time to Syria.

Putin merely need announce that Russia and Syria will be conducting joint security exercises all over Syria as part of an ongoing mutual defense relationship…send in a division of Russians, maybe even a half division, their divisions are numerically smaller than ours once were, and land them all around the country, Syrian air bases abound…and then have them conduct convoys and other “logistical” exercises for a few weeks, starting this Thursday.

Obama’s bluff will have been called…

Should Obama order missiles into Syria and they kill or injure Russian troops, whose presence was publicly announced prior to their arrival, Russia is the victim.

Then it gets interesting.

coldwarrior on August 27, 2013 at 8:31 PM

Our Nobel Peace Prize winning Dear Leader sure is bringing everyone together and forcing them to pick sides, isn’t he?

farsighted on August 27, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Yep. He’s quite the peacemaker.

DaveDief on August 27, 2013 at 8:42 PM

You don’t use missiles (or troops) to “send a message;” you use them to blow shit up!

If you want to send a message try Western Union.

schmuck281 on August 28, 2013 at 2:27 AM