The credibility crisis can’t be solved with Tomahawk missiles

posted at 12:01 pm on September 5, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

The Obama administration has stumbled from one credibility crisis to the next on Syria, and now wants Congress to rescue Barack Obama from himself.  Obama declares that the stated policy of the United States toward Syria is regime change, then dithers on how to effect it.  Obama draws a red line, and then does nothing at all to prepare for the possibility that Bashar al-Assad might call his bluff.

This credibility crisis goes beyond Syria, however, and extends to the whole Arab Spring, for which Obama seemed all too pleased to take credit not terribly long ago.  He demanded Hosni Mubarak’s ouster and quick elections in Egypt, which turned a stable American ally into a barely-contained disaster, and then has vacillated ever since on how to handle the crisis.  Obama then led a NATO intervention in Libya while claiming not to want regime change, but ended up decapitating the Qaddafi regime anyway.  That replaced a brutal dictatorship that was still cooperating with the West on counter-terrorism into a failed state that has allowed for a rapid expansion of radical Islamist terror networks through the whole region.

Now Obama wants to apply the Libya model to Syria, but cannot articulate a single American interest in launching a war.  Syria has not attacked American interests or allies, nor is likely to do so.  The most effective elements of the opposition in Syria are comprised of the very terrorist networks that we are presently fighting ourselves.  Obama even backed away from his own red line, claiming that “the world” set it in its opposition to chemical weapons, but as I note in my column for The Fiscal Times today, there is no global “red line” for military intervention as Obama claims:

The idea that the “world” has set a red line requiring military intervention after the use of chemical weapons is rather strange, and has no historical precedent.  Chemical weapons have had a number of deployments since the 1925 Geneva Protocol (affirmed unanimously by the UN General Assembly in 1966) that first banned their use without any such response.

Iraq used chemical weapons in two 1987 attacks during their eight-year war against Iran without any outside intervention. Libya used chemical weapons against Chad in the same year, again with no outside intervention.  Most infamously, Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons as a means of genocide against the Kurds in Halabja in 1988, killing more than 5,000 non-combatants, without any international military response (although it was one of the many justifications used by the US and UN in 1991 for Operation Desert Storm and in 2003’s second invasion of Iraq).  One can certainly argue that all of these incidents called for American or global intervention, but not that the world laid down a red line for armed response to their use.

There are no global “red lines” for military intervention in this case, even with the United Nations, which is balking at military strikes in Syria.  That wouldn’t matter if vital national security issues were at stake in Syria, but they’re not, and the Obama administration isn’t even bothering to pretend there are.  The only substantial argument is the danger to American credibility for not following through on a red-line threat, and that danger is not insubstantial.  However, that’s not really the danger to American credibility, which is why missile strikes won’t solve the problem:

Finally, we come to the argument that Obama’s red line requires us to salvage his credibility, or risk rogue nations like Iran assuming that the US is nothing but a paper tiger. This is really the only argument that makes any sense at all; there is little doubt that damage to our credibility, especially in that region, is dangerous and could cost lives.  However, that argument requires us to conduct acts of war literally for the sake of conducting acts of war, while announcing that we don’t intend to actually change the conditions in Syria as a result.

That’s not an argument that will restore American credibility, especially since our stated policy toward Syria is that of regime change. If we lob bombs into Damascus and claim that we aren’t trying to change the regime, not only will no one take that seriously, Assad’s potential survival would compound the problem that Obama seeks to cure through military action now.

The root of Obama’s credibility problem cannot be solved by cruise missiles. Obama offered a boast a year ago with his red-line statement, and then clearly did nothing in the following year to set the stage for an international response to Assad for crossing it. As this week has proven, Obama didn’t even bother to engage Congress until it became clear that voters overwhelmingly oppose his rush to military action. Isolated on the international stage and under political fire at home, Obama now won’t even claim ownership of his own red line.

The likeliest outcome of sustained American strikes on Assad’s regime is that the field will tilt to the benefit of the radical Islamists on the ground in Syria, just as it has in Libya.  That is the bottom line, and that is why Congress should refuse to authorize a war against Syria.

As for our credibility issues, those will be with us as long as President Obama remains in office.  The 22nd Amendment already provides the resolution to that problem, and voters will have to take responsibility for restoring American credibility and foreign-policy wisdom in November 2016.

 


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

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Putin is saying this could go nuclear…so what now Preezy McBombypants?

workingclass artist on September 5, 2013 at 1:43 PM

“Got a Beyonce concert in the Rose Garden to plan for, let me get back to you.”

Bishop on September 5, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Obama is doing a great job of turning our Constitution and highest ideals of self-governance into an ugly, painful joke. Every new item I hear about this debacle is worse that I could have imagined. The idea that Saudi Arabia would finance this “intervention” is demeaning.

A monarchy paying the United States to wipe out its opposition? Unthinkable, until Obama.

Conducting airstrikes on behalf of a group of savages that machine-gun their unarmed captives? Unthinkable, until Obama.

Providing military aid to these so-called, romanticized “rebels” who are busy torching Christian churches? Hadn’t thought of it, until Obama.

Herald of Woe on September 5, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Barky has another way out that isn’t being talked about here, as far as I can see: the occurrence of another major event that is so big that military reaction becomes a true moral imperative, demanding rapid and unified action that virtually none dare question.

A cornered animal is said to be more dangerous, and Barky has backed himself firmly into that corner. And by “Barky”, I don’t just mean that guy, I mean the whole globalist cabal that installed him, props him up, and tells him, through ValJar, what to do.

Just crazy talk? Hope so…

bofh on September 5, 2013 at 1:49 PM

I’m sure the lazy stupid President thinks the ship is named for him but many of us with an appreciation for the Navy would object to your even putting a ship named for the father of the American Navy in the same thought as a Kenyan socialist who is trying to destroy the Navy.

Lessee, our stupid pResident is in the mindset that the military is his personal plaything. There will be little of much use of our Navy if Barry has his way with it, converting it to the LoveFleet and committing its primary mission to Humanitarian aid in distributing Moochelles Healty Meals ™ to nations suffering in the aftermath of disasters.

Actually I’m quite surprised he hasn’t yet offered to sell one of our carriers to the rebels.

hawkeye54 on September 5, 2013 at 1:53 PM

..there is no global “red line” for military intervention as Obama claims

Good catch and great article (both here and there)!

Karmi on September 5, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Herald of Woe on September 5, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Well to be fair, he did promise to “fundamentally transform” the U.S.

The sad part is that millions of American voters were too f–king stupid to ask “transform it into what”?

AZCoyote on September 5, 2013 at 1:58 PM

What is this “vote of no confidence” nonsense?

A totally toothless threat under our Constitution.

If we had kept the King’s Parliamentary model…where the leader of the commons, and the winning “party,” the Prime Minister, as it were, won the majority of votes to get there is called on the carpet and told…we have no confidence in you…new elections called for Wednesday, next….then, a vote of no confidence would have meaning.

It has none under our Constitution nor under either House or Senate Rules.

It would send a message…maybe.

But, isn’t sending messages what got us in this stupid situation in the first place?

coldwarrior on September 5, 2013 at 1:06 PM

A PR media exercise for the Europeans in EU speak I guess…who knows…

All I see is nattering nabobs on both sides nattering incoherently.

The rest of the world must see the US as having a nervous breakdown.

This is where this feckless president and his lunatic fringe have brought us.

Putin called Kerry a liar…which of course he is but this isn’t good.

Congress votes to support our lunatic reckless president and we lose…or votes to nix the syrian intervention and we present a divided nation who has no faith in the current CIC and we lose that credibility…or congress bails and calls it a delay…Or congress votes to nix and Obama does it anyway…

This situation created by the Buffoon occupying the Oval Office isn’t just a domestic political crisis…but an international crisis that will have far reaching consequences for years to come.

Kinda like Obamacare…on a global scale with nukes to boot.

Oy!

workingclass artist on September 5, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Well, Tomahawks could solve the problem.

33.90N 77.04W…close enough for government work.

coldwarrior on September 5, 2013 at 12:18 PM

Wilmington, NC?

pain train on September 5, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Ed,

I disagree 100% with your analysis but I hope that you and 99.9% of the members on this forum who oppose the strikes against Assad terrorist regime will be 100% behind our Navy and Air Force when and if the strikes begin… I am certain that you will do your patriotic duties on this subject…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Providing military aid to these so-called, romanticized “rebels” who are busy torching Christian churches? Hadn’t thought of it, until Obama.

Herald of Woe on September 5, 2013 at 1:48 PM

If, and when, things light up in Syria, I’m of a mind some members of the Religion of Perpetual Outrage may seek to torch some stuff right here in the USofA. Barry and DC have made us particularly vulnerable at home, perhaps as intended.

With Barry in command, WW3 is nearly at hand. Both abroad and at home.

hawkeye54 on September 5, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Halfhearted vs resolved.

Akzed on September 5, 2013 at 2:03 PM

The sad part is that millions of American voters were too f–king stupid to ask “transform it into what”?

AZCoyote on September 5, 2013 at 1:58 PM

A nuclear wasteland, perhaps, if Barry and John’s Excellent Syrian Adventure gets way out of hand.

hawkeye54 on September 5, 2013 at 2:04 PM

I disagree 100% with your analysis but I hope that you and 99.9% of the members on this forum who oppose the strikes against Assad terrorist regime will be 100% behind our Navy and Air Force when and if the strikes begin… I am certain that you will do your patriotic duties on this subject…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 2:01 PM

because, in the past, it has been the right that has been the problem in this regard. We are the ones releasing confidential information, disseminating military secrets in the NYT, staging protests, calling the president a war criminal, etc.

Yeah, sure. Patriotic duty. the left knows all about patriotic duty.

Monkeytoe on September 5, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Putin is saying this could go nuclear…so what now Preezy McBombypants?

workingclass artist on September 5, 2013 at 1:43 PM

“Got a Beyonce concert in the Rose Garden to plan for, let me get back to you.”

Bishop on September 5, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Yeah…then play some Golf and get a film crew to start working with US Intel on writing the script for a new Must See Hollywood Propaganda Blockbuster.

Winning!

workingclass artist on September 5, 2013 at 2:05 PM

“We have to bomb Syria to know what’s in there.”

Preznent Barky

Simonsez on September 5, 2013 at 2:05 PM

because, in the past, it has been the right that has been the problem in this regard. We are the ones releasing confidential information, disseminating military secrets in the NYT, staging protests, calling the president a war criminal, etc.

Yeah, sure. Patriotic duty. the left knows all about patriotic duty.

Monkeytoe on September 5, 2013 at 2:04 PM

We do not need to be like the Left and we must not be like the Left…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 2:08 PM

“My credibility is not in question.”

Well part of the reason why is because to be questioned one must actually HAVE ‘credibility’ – Obama has NONE!

How can a man/President have any shred of credibility when:

- He has no less than 4 ON-GOING scandals and administration cover-ups?

- He continues to obey a legal subpoena to release documents regarding these scandals?

- When he was caught dead-to-rights LYING about the Benghazi attack – a month after he acknowledged the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack he spoke before the UN and declared Benghazi to be a protest about a bogus video.

- When he openly spews heinous lies like ‘Obamacare won’t cost a dime, will pay for itself, will reduce the deficit, will lower the cost of health coverage, will NOT cost people their jobs, will NOT cost people the health care they have / like, and all discussions regarding health care legislation will be televised on TV…and any legislation drafted will be available to the public to review for 48 hours prior to a vote being held?

- when the man he picks to spread his BS about our having to bail him out over his ‘red line’comment is the guy who began his political career by slanderin the military after he returned from Viet Nam to lie under oath before Congress by telling about attrocities he never saw?

easyt65 on September 5, 2013 at 2:12 PM

pain train on September 5, 2013 at 2:00 PM

Has been corrected…somewhere up there earlier…

Math and cyphering numbers is hard, OK?

coldwarrior on September 5, 2013 at 2:15 PM

We do not need to be like the Left and we must not be like the Left…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 2:08 PM

And we haven’t been. So why the snide comment, which implies that in the past conservatives have not supported troops?

Monkeytoe on September 5, 2013 at 2:16 PM

And we haven’t been. So why the snide comment, which implies that in the past conservatives have not supported troops?

Monkeytoe on September 5, 2013 at 2:16 PM

I am sure that you will be cheering every time a missile or an air strike destroys Assad forces and assets…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 2:20 PM

Halfhearted vs resolved.

Akzed on September 5, 2013 at 2:03 PM

The clerk is a 4-tour Iraq Vet.

davidk on September 5, 2013 at 2:22 PM

I am certain that you will do your patriotic duties on this subject…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Define “patriotic duties.”

davidk on September 5, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Ed,

I disagree 100% with your analysis but I hope that you and 99.9% of the members on this forum who oppose the strikes against Assad terrorist regime will be 100% behind our Navy and Air Force when and if the strikes begin… I am certain that you will do your patriotic duties on this subject…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 2:01 PM

When hasn’t the right failed to support the troops? Have you forgotten how Kerry dishonored those serving in Vietnam? Did you never hear of Jane Fonda having fun with a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun? Name one instance when the right did not support the troops, you friggin’ liar.

HiJack on September 5, 2013 at 2:29 PM

War Powers Resolution Act

50 U.S.C. § 1541 – Purpose and policy

(a) Congressional declaration

It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and proper clause

Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer hereof.

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief; limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to:

(1) a declaration of war,

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Has Syria declared war on the United States?

No, but AQ has and it is part of the ‘rebels’ of whom we are asked to arm and assist.

Is there yet any specific statutory authorisation for airstrikes on Syria?

Not yet.

Has a national emergency been created by an attack from Syria upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces?

Nope.

Declaring War Is One Power That The President Absolutely Does Not Have

Resist We Much on September 5, 2013 at 2:29 PM

Remember when Clinton shot some Tomahawks at Osama after the African embassy bombings? Totally deterred Al Qaeda from any further attacks /s

xuyee on September 5, 2013 at 2:32 PM

I am certain that you will do your patriotic duties on this subject…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Riiight, ‘cuz, like, um, ya know, it is patriotic and all that to support Al Nusra, Al Qaeda, and the Muslim Brotherhood, who ALL hate us and would love to see us ‘wiped off the map’ along with Israel.

America Has No National Interests In Syria & There’s No Guarantee That Our Intervention Will Make Things Any Better…For Anyone.

**Warning: Extremely graphic images of the atrocities committed by the ‘moderate’ Syrian rebels are included**

It’s definitely in our ‘national interest’ to intervene on behalf of the guys who decapitate Christians and EAT the hearts of their enemies after they’ve ripped them from the corpses. ///

Resist We Much on September 5, 2013 at 2:32 PM

I disagree 100% with your analysis but I hope that you and 99.9% of the members on this forum who oppose the strikes against Assad terrorist regime will be 100% behind our Navy and Air Force when and if the strikes begin… I am certain that you will do your patriotic duties on this subject…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 2:01 PM

I’m always in support of our men and women in uniform. If Congress authorizes the military strikes, I’ll accept that as a product of the legitimate political process even if I think it’s bad policy. If Obama ignores a Congressional rejection and conducts an act of war anyway, I will advise Congress to seek a political/legal manner of redress for that violation.

Ed Morrissey on September 5, 2013 at 2:35 PM

What is the simbiotic connection between the Jihadists and our leftist government?
I’d guess hatred of Christians…..

Don L on September 5, 2013 at 2:36 PM

‘Employment of airstrikes alone to support French troops in the jungle would create a double jeopardy: it would comprise an act of war and would also entail the risk of having intervened and lost.’

– President Dwight Eisenhower on intervening in Vietnam on behalf of France

Resist We Much on September 5, 2013 at 2:36 PM

I’m always in support of our men and women in uniform. If Congress authorizes the military strikes, I’ll accept that as a product of the legitimate political process even if I think it’s bad policy. If Obama ignores a Congressional rejection and conducts an act of war anyway, I will advise Congress to seek a political/legal manner of redress for that violation.

Ed Morrissey on September 5, 2013 at 2:35 PM

The President has the authority under the War Powers Resolution to order military actions for 60 days without authorization or declaration of war from Congress… So as long as he does that and not violate the War Powers Resolution then Congress cannot and should not do anything about it…

Remember that in the future, as early as 2017, there will be a Republican President in office and he may need the War Powers Resolution to act without Congress approval for 60 days…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 2:41 PM

There were several other cases in which chemical weapons have been used, and the “world community” did nothing.

Egypt used chemical weapons several times from 1963 to 1967 during the North Yemen Civil War. An estimate 1500 people were killed, including civilians.

From 1987 to 1989, Cuba used chemical weapons against UNITA rebels fighting the Cuban & Soviet backed Angolan MPLA government.

It has been alleged that Sudan, with assistance from Syrian military, used chemical weapons in Darfur.

The UN did nothing in any of these cases.

Wombat on September 5, 2013 at 2:42 PM

When hasn’t the right failed to support the troops? Have you forgotten how Kerry dishonored those serving in Vietnam? Did you never hear of Jane Fonda having fun with a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun? Name one instance when the right did not support the troops, you friggin’ liar.

HiJack on September 5, 2013 at 2:29 PM

We shall see when and if the strikes against Assad terrorist regime begin…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Operation Blurred Red Lines

Why did this come to mind when barky first said Red Line

D-fusit on September 5, 2013 at 2:46 PM

I’m always in support of our men and women in uniform. If Congress authorizes the military strikes, I’ll accept that as a product of the legitimate political process even if I think it’s bad policy. If Obama ignores a Congressional rejection and conducts an act of war anyway, I will advise Congress to seek a political/legal manner of redress for that violation.

Ed Morrissey on September 5, 2013 at 2:35 PM

mnjg spanked, elegantly

Schadenfreude on September 5, 2013 at 2:48 PM

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 2:41 PM

You fool, when was the US attacked, or about to be attacked by Syria.

Schadenfreude on September 5, 2013 at 2:49 PM

We shall see when and if the strikes against Assad terrorist regime begin…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Then you and obama/Hillary will have all the blood on your hands, and the treasure of the US too.

Your heads should go first, politically speaking.

Schadenfreude on September 5, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Ed,

I disagree 100% with your analysis but I hope that you and 99.9% of the members on this forum who oppose the strikes against Assad terrorist regime will be 100% behind our Navy and Air Force when and if the strikes begin… I am certain that you will do your patriotic duties on this subject…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Others here have already cleaned your clock re. your snarky insinuation that folks here do not support the military, so I’ll stop laughing at you and just ask you a simple question.

You say you disagree 100% with Captain Ed’s analysis, but then fail to tell us what he got “wrong”, or why you disagree with it.

Care to enlighten us?

Del Dolemonte on September 5, 2013 at 2:51 PM

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Did Bambi seek congressional approval or not?

Your desire to see the Islamists take over Syria seems to blind you to the politically realities of the world. If Congress says no the jig is up. Obama will not strike Syria, and that’s exactly what he wants. That’s why he did an about-face last Friday and asked Congress for approval.

NotCoach on September 5, 2013 at 2:52 PM

mnjg made itself a prouder American than coldwarrior, the one who spent his life around the world, protecting weasels like mnjg.

Stop making wrong and foolish speculation about where I am from… I am an American and more proud American than you are… I do not change my pride in America based on who is President like many of you are doing here… You people are not different than the left wing lunatics who were doing the same stupid crap when Bush was President…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 11:55 AM

Schadenfreude on September 5, 2013 at 2:52 PM

When hasn’t the right failed to support the troops? Have you forgotten how Kerry dishonored those serving in Vietnam? Did you never hear of Jane Fonda having fun with a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun? Name one instance when the right did not support the troops, you friggin’ liar.

HiJack on September 5, 2013 at 2:29 PM

I’ve got nothin’.

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Edited for accuracy.

Del Dolemonte on September 5, 2013 at 2:53 PM

The President has the authority under the War Powers Resolution to order military actions for 60 days without authorization or declaration of war from Congress… So as long as he does that and not violate the War Powers Resolution then Congress cannot and should not do anything about it…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 2:41 PM

You really should try reading the WPRA, especially the part that specifically describes where a POTUS can act militarily and unilaterally without Congressional approval, and work on that reading comprehension because Syria does not meet ANY of the three permissive areas.

Remember that in the future, as early as 2017, there will be a Republican President in office and he may need the War Powers Resolution to act without Congress approval for 60 days…

And, I’ll oppose his illegal actions should he undertake any.

Resist We Much on September 5, 2013 at 2:55 PM

We shall see when and if the strikes against Assad terrorist regime begin…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 2:44 PM

You’re a disgusting little prick. Our men and women who serve do just that; they serve with honor! No right thinking American blames them for the bad decisions of our leaders. Only frustrated little pissants, who feel they have no control over anything, beat their wives and children in response. Why, sort of like Islamists.

NotCoach on September 5, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Stop making wrong and foolish speculation about where I am from… I am an American and more proud American than you are… I do not change my pride in America based on who is President like many of you are doing here… You people are not different than the left wing lunatics who were doing the same stupid crap when Bush was President…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 11:55 AM

I OPPOSED the Afghan ground war and the Iraq War, but they were conducted legally. Bush DID obtain Congressional approval. He also had UN resolutions, NATO, a large coalition, and the MAJORITY of the American public behind him.

Obama? Not so much.

Resist We Much on September 5, 2013 at 2:57 PM

A very good post, Ed. Very well said.

Dusty on September 5, 2013 at 2:58 PM

The President has the authority under the War Powers Resolution to order military actions for 60 days without authorization or declaration of war from Congress… So as long as he does that and not violate the War Powers Resolution then Congress cannot and should not do anything about it…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Important part of the resolution is bolded for your convenience.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president’s power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, “statutory authorization,” or in case of “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

Syria does not qualify under any interpretation of the Act.

BobMbx on September 5, 2013 at 3:00 PM

You say you disagree 100% with Captain Ed’s analysis, but then fail to tell us what he got “wrong”, or why you disagree with it.

Care to enlighten us?

Del Dolemonte on September 5, 2013 at 2:51 PM

It is very simple:

Defeating Assad terrorist regime means a defeating the Iranian terrorists regime and their Hizballah terrorists… A major strategic victory for the US and Israel…

Most of the rebels are not Al Qaeda terrorists and not related to Al Qaeda… The most effective force among the rebels are not Al Qaeda terrorists… What Al Qaeda terrorists are good at is posting Youtube videos showing their barbarism and evil… Unfortunately many are falling for this propaganda and using it as the ultimate excuse to not acting against Assad…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:03 PM

It is very simple:

Defeating Assad terrorist regime means a defeating the Iranian terrorists regime and their Hizballah terrorists…
mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:03 PM

So are you advocating going to war against Iran and Hezbollah just so that Teh One can save face after throwing down his silly gauntlet (Red Line)?

Madness

D-fusit on September 5, 2013 at 3:14 PM

So are you advocating going to war against Iran and Hezbollah just so that Teh One can save face after throwing down his silly gauntlet (Red Line)?

Madness

D-fusit on September 5, 2013 at 3:14 PM

Hey, let’s go to war with Russia while we’re at it.

NotCoach on September 5, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Hey, let’s go to war with Russia while we’re at it.

NotCoach on September 5, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Are you forgetting China, they are with Russia on this one.

D-fusit on September 5, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Most of the rebels are not Al Qaeda terrorists and not related to Al Qaeda… The most effective force among the rebels are not Al Qaeda terrorists…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Are the rebels Islamists, or not? Will you ever stop being dishonest? I tell you what; I will also grant you that most of the rebel thugs aren’t Scandinavian either. That still doesn’t change the fact that the Islamists are in control.

NotCoach on September 5, 2013 at 3:18 PM

This is gonna leave a mark.

Predicted this weeks ago.

coldwarrior on September 5, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Are you forgetting China, they are with Russia on this one.

D-fusit on September 5, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Meh, China will sit this one out and sell goods to both sides. China doesn’t mind a weakened Russia.

NotCoach on September 5, 2013 at 3:19 PM

Are the rebels Islamists, or not? Will you ever stop being dishonest? I tell you what; I will also grant you that most of the rebel thugs aren’t Scandinavian either. That still doesn’t change the fact that the Islamists are in control.

NotCoach on September 5, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Most of the rebels are not islamists…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Defeating Assad terrorist regime means a defeating the Iranian terrorists regime and their Hizballah terrorists… A major strategic victory for the US and Israel…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Yeah, ‘cuz, like, um, ya know, lobbing a few tomahawks ‘across the bow’ at the Syrian regime is going to defeat Syria, Iran or Hezbollah!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Stop it, yer killin’ me!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

I think ALL of my ribs are broken!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

Most of the rebels are not Al Qaeda terrorists and not related to Al Qaeda… The most effective force among the rebels are not Al Qaeda terrorists… What Al Qaeda terrorists are good at is posting Youtube videos showing their barbarism and evil…

Sheesh, the ignorance and naïveté are strong with this one.


USA Today: Syrian rebels pledge loyalty to al-Qaeda

Reuters: Kerry portrait of Syria rebels at odds with intelligence reports

J-Post: Syria’s Nusra Front eclipsed by Iraqi al-Qaida

Resist We Much on September 5, 2013 at 3:23 PM

It is very simple:

Defeating Assad terrorist regime means a defeating the Iranian terrorists regime and their Hizballah terrorists… A major strategic victory for the US and Israel…

Most of the rebels are not Al Qaeda terrorists and not related to Al Qaeda… The most effective force among the rebels are not Al Qaeda terrorists… What Al Qaeda terrorists are good at is posting Youtube videos showing their barbarism and evil… Unfortunately many are falling for this propaganda and using it as the ultimate excuse to not acting against Assad…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Your ‘analysis’ is, his to put t it, not as much simplistic, but simpleton-ish. Most of the rebels are brutes, granted not all of them are jihadists or Al Qaeda, yet all of them are certified brutes. that’s precisely why we should stay out of that quagmire. Here, even NYT gets something right every now and then. And you want these animals in power once Assad is gone? Then you must be crazier than I thought.

jimver on September 5, 2013 at 3:24 PM

NYT: Brutality of Syrian Rebels Posing Dilemma in West

4 of 5 Moderate Free Syrian Army Front Commanders Demand to Work with Al Qaeda

Muslim Brotherhood in Syria: Shari’a or Death

Unfortunately many are falling for this propaganda and using it as the ultimate excuse to not acting against Assad…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Syria is neither our problem at present nor is it our responsibility. I don’t care what the Syrian government and rebels do to one another.

How did that Libyan adventure work out or the administration’s assurances that the MoFoBros would not seek election in Egypt work out for ya?

Resist We Much on September 5, 2013 at 3:24 PM

Most of the rebels are not islamists…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Except when they are:

Kerry portrait of Syria rebels at odds with intelligence reports

NotCoach on September 5, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Most of the rebels are not Al Qaeda terrorists and not related to Al Qaeda… The most effective force among the rebels are not Al Qaeda terrorists… What Al Qaeda terrorists are good at is posting Youtube videos showing their barbarism and evil… Unfortunately many are falling for this propaganda and using it as the ultimate excuse to not acting against Assad…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Where is your credible, multi-sourced evidence that most of the rebels are not AQ? If you can refute this info, please do so.

There are two major Al-Qaeda factions fighting in Syria. One is Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which is led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Last month, the U.S. State Department announced Baghdadi had moved his base of operations into Syria. The other major Al-Qaeda faction in Syria is the Al-Nusra Front, or Jabhat al-Nusra. It was formed in early 2012 with help from Al-Qaeda in Iraq. The Al-Nusra Front is now led by Mohammad al-Golani, a Syrian national who initially downplayed the group’s links to Al-Qaeda. The Al-Nusra Front now openly declares loyalty to Al-Qaeda’s Egyptian leader, Ayman Zawahri, who is thought to be hiding in Pakistan.

Despite following different leaders, the two main Al-Qaeda factions in Syria are cooperating with each other to fight Assad’s regime. They also have been able to recruit Sunni militants as foreign volunteers in Syria.

That last part I bolded is important. Because it proves the old adage, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, which disproves what 99.9% of your Leftist professors are teaching you. They also said AQ would never work with Saddam Hussein, despite ample evidence that the two were in cahoots starting back when Clinton was abusing cigars in the Oral Office.

Del Dolemonte on September 5, 2013 at 3:26 PM

So are you advocating going to war against Iran and Hezbollah just so that Teh One can save face after throwing down his silly gauntlet (Red Line)?

Madness

D-fusit on September 5, 2013 at 3:14 PM

This has nothing to do with Obama anymore… Destroying Assad regime is a fatal blow to Iran and Hizballah… If we do not strike Assad then the Assad/Iran/Hizballah axis of terror will be greatly emboldened… Al Qaeda terrorists will be greatly emboldened.. Russia and China will be greatly emboldened… North Korea and every one of our enemies will be greatly emboldened… This is now about the national security of the United States…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:26 PM

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:21 PM

You’re not Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf by any chance are you?

Sure do sound like him.

coldwarrior on September 5, 2013 at 3:28 PM

That last part I bolded is important. Because it proves the old adage, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, which disproves what 99.9% of your Leftist professors are teaching you. They also said AQ would never work with Saddam Hussein, despite ample evidence that the two were in cahoots starting back when Clinton was abusing cigars in the Oral Office.

Del Dolemonte on September 5, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Al Qaeda in Iraq and Jabhat Al Nusra are the same evil crap… They are both Al Qaeda terrorists but both of them combined are a minority among the rebels fighting Assad in Syria…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:29 PM

You’re not Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf by any chance are you?

Sure do sound like him.

coldwarrior on September 5, 2013 at 3:28 PM

You got me coldwarrior… You are so smart…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Most of the rebels are not islamists…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:21 PM

What about these rebels? Are they Islamist?

Extreme Graphic Video of Rebels Executing Soldiers

Syrian Rebels Execute 7 Army Officers VIDEO Brutality of Syrian Rebels Posing Dilemma in West

D-fusit on September 5, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Al Qaeda in Iraq and Jabhat Al Nusra are the same evil crap… They are both Al Qaeda terrorists but both of them combined are a minority among the rebels fighting Assad in Syria…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Right, and like Senator Senile, I bet you can tell the ‘good guys’ from the ‘bad guys’ in Syria…except when posing for pictures with them.

Resist We Much on September 5, 2013 at 3:30 PM

This has nothing to do with Obama anymore… Destroying Assad regime is a fatal blow to Iran and Hizballah… If we do not strike Assad then the Assad/Iran/Hizballah axis of terror will be greatly emboldened… Al Qaeda terrorists will be greatly emboldened.. Russia and China will be greatly emboldened… North Korea and every one of our enemies will be greatly emboldened… This is now about the national security of the United States…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Empty talking points with no meat. Who is feeding you?

Canada will be emboldened!

Get back to us when you can present a coherent and logical reason for why we have a direct national interest in lobbing a few Tomahawks at Syria.

NotCoach on September 5, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Defeating Assad terrorist regime means a defeating the Iranian terrorists regime and their Hizballah terrorists… A major strategic victory for the US and Israel…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Proving that you are clueless.

Schadenfreude on September 5, 2013 at 3:31 PM

This has nothing to do with Obama anymore… Destroying Assad regime is a fatal blow to Iran and Hizballah… If we do not strike Assad then the Assad/Iran/Hizballah axis of terror will be greatly emboldened… Al Qaeda terrorists will be greatly emboldened.. Russia and China will be greatly emboldened… North Korea and every one of our enemies will be greatly emboldened… This is now about the national security of the United States…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Let me ask you a question; Have you ever served, even one single day in the Armed Forces?

D-fusit on September 5, 2013 at 3:33 PM

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:29 PM

I bet you believed the Democrats when they said all of this about Assad, too:

Dems & Syria: Hawk Nose On; Dove Nose Off

**eyeroll**

Resist We Much on September 5, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Most of the rebels are not islamists…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:21 PM

NY Times, 5 months ago:

Link.

In Syria’s largest city, Aleppo, rebels aligned with Al Qaeda control the power plant, run the bakeries and head a court that applies Islamic law. Elsewhere, they have seized government oil fields, put employees back to work and now profit from the crude they produce.

Across Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with Islamic courts staffed by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades led by extremists. Even the Supreme Military Council, the umbrella rebel organization whose formation the West had hoped would sideline radical groups, is stocked with commanders who want to infuse Islamic law into a future Syrian government.

Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.

F-

Del Dolemonte on September 5, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Let me ask you a question; Have you ever served, even one single day in the Armed Forces?

D-fusit on September 5, 2013 at 3:33 PM

No, but what is your point? Is it because I did not serve in the military that I cannot opine on war or going to war?

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:36 PM

You are so smart…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Well, yes, I am.

But I do not require the affirmation.

But, thank you, anyway.

coldwarrior on September 5, 2013 at 3:36 PM

That last part I bolded is important. Because it proves the old adage, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, which disproves what 99.9% of your Leftist professors are teaching you. They also said AQ would never work with Saddam Hussein, despite ample evidence that the two were in cahoots starting back when Clinton was abusing cigars in the Oral Office.

Del Dolemonte on September 5, 2013 at 3:26 PM

Al Qaeda in Iraq and Jabhat Al Nusra are the same evil crap… They are both Al Qaeda terrorists but both of them combined are a minority among the rebels fighting Assad in Syria…

Tereza Catsup Kerry the 3rd on September 5, 2013 at 3:29 PM

See my 3:34 PM post. And then prove they’re a minority, Tereza. By the way, I notice that you never answered the question I posed to you in that same post. Your failure to do so means you cannot answer it.

Now, can I have some of your world-famous gin-soaked raisins?

Del Dolemonte on September 5, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Why Do John Kerry and John McCain Believe that Syria’s Rebels Are Mostly Moderate?

Most of the thinking that Syrian’s rebellion is mostly moderate comes from a single source. Both Sen. John McCain and Secretary of State John Kerry have publicly cited that source, and if you’ve been watching cable news this week you’ve seen that source. Her name is Elizabeth O’Bagy, and she works at the Institute for the Study of War. She penned a piece for the Wall Street Journal that has become the basis for the idea that Syria’s rebels are more moderate than jihadist.

O’Bagy has been all over the Fox News Channel and CNN this week, out of nowhere, to tell America that Syria’s rebels are mostly moderate.

The Institute for the Study of War bills itself as non-partisan and appears to have lived up to that since its founding in 2007.

Dr. O’Bagy, on the other hand, is also connected to an organization called the Syrian Emergency Task Force. As its political director, she is one of its four top officers according to the group’s web site.

Political director, by the way, means that O’Bagy is an activist. Her activism includes promoting the bombing of Assad’s forces.

Here’s a jaw-dropper: O’Bagy criticized Israel for killing Hamas leader Ahmed al-Jabari last November. But enough about her.

The SETF’s executive director is one Mouaz Moustafa. This is Moustafa.

Continue

Resist We Much on September 5, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Link.

In Syria’s largest city, Aleppo, rebels aligned with Al Qaeda control the power plant, run the bakeries and head a court that applies Islamic law. Elsewhere, they have seized government oil fields, put employees back to work and now profit from the crude they produce.

Across Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with Islamic courts staffed by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades led by extremists. Even the Supreme Military Council, the umbrella rebel organization whose formation the West had hoped would sideline radical groups, is stocked with commanders who want to infuse Islamic law into a future Syrian government.

Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.
F-

Del Dolemonte on September 5, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Still this does not make the point that Al Qaeda terrorists are a majority among the rebels… This article is telling you what the Al Qaeda terrorists are doing in the areas they control but it is expected from these evil bustards… I am also certain that most Syrians do not want to live under Al Qaeda rule…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Is it because I did not serve in the military that I cannot opine on war or going to war?

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:36 PM

No, but you are clueless on both.

Schadenfreude on September 5, 2013 at 3:41 PM

coldwarrior on September 5, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Life is variety for spies :)

Schadenfreude on September 5, 2013 at 3:42 PM

Defeating Assad terrorist regime means a defeating the Iranian terrorists regime and their Hizballah terrorists… A major strategic victory for the US and Israel…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:03 PM

Clue, that’s not what obama wants to do.

Schadenfreude on September 5, 2013 at 3:46 PM

“My credibility is not on the line” — obama

“You lie” – the truest thing ever said.

Schadenfreude on September 5, 2013 at 3:47 PM

No, but what is your point? Is it because I did not serve in the military that I cannot opine on war or going to war?

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:36 PM

I figured as much, you seem so willing to send our men & women into combat without making any sacrifices of your own.

What if this whole Tomahawk Missile adventure escalates (extremely possible given the state actors involved) out of control and starts a greater regional war that could spark WW III? Then what, say whoops. We didn’t want this to happen. Sorry, we’ll just go home now. Good God man, think!

D-fusit on September 5, 2013 at 3:49 PM

No, but what is your point? Is it because I did not serve in the military that I cannot opine on war or going to war?

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:36 PM

No, but then maybe you shouldn’t clamor so vigorosuly (cuz persuasive it is no) in favor of war. War is hell, period. And we really, really, really don’t need to be in this one. At all.

jimver on September 5, 2013 at 3:51 PM

I am also certain that most Syrians do not want to live under Al Qaeda rule…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:40 PM

And suddenly toppling Assad is going to prevent this how?

Exactly?

We have modeling of this phenomena and it is recent, and in the region, too.

Tunisia…where that “Arab Spring” thing started? Ansar al-Shariah, still out there…killing at will, and the Tunisian government is cracking down on Tunisian rapper Weld El 15, as a national priority?

Libya…had to topple Ghadaffi…who was not athreat to the US, nor pretty much anyone else except for Islamists and Ansar-al-Shariah. Who is running libya these days? It ain’t secular capitalist democrats, that’s for damn sure.

Egypt?

Morsi and the Brotherhood just screwed tht place up one side sand down the other…and it took the military under, heaven forbid, a field marshal, to get Egypt righted and hopefully on a course to a far far better future than Morsi or the Brotherhood could have ever offered. But…that President you saty we have to follow? His view is still that the current military and civilian government of Egypt are illegal, and must return Morsi to power.

Give us one bit of fact, with at least one credible reference, that when Assad is taken out…and he will be…that Syria will turn secular, and peaceful.

You do know that when the Ottomans were tossed out of Syria like so much used furniture, even back then, a revolt started, and Islamist revolt at that…because there were Christians in the French mandate government in Damascus and Latakia. And most Christians fled to the US or toLebanon to avoid the wrath of the religion of Peace.

The only political group in Syria, in its entire history as a state, with any track record of protecting Christians and other non-Moslems have been the Allawite governments of Hafez and Bashir Assad…

And you want to toss Assad out and give rise to more Isamists “peace making” in the Levant?

coldwarrior on September 5, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Forlorn hope but maybe Obama will realize that making grand and not so grand pronouncements have the real possibility of coming back to haunt him.

I am sure someone can correct me. It seems Obama placed a bet based on a hand that had perhaps nothing, in the expectation that nobody would call him on it. Now someone has and he has to respond (match the bet) or fold. He does not want to go the distance but he also does not want to fold, at least his advisors would not want him to be seen as braggart with no willingness to back his words.

But the conseqences in the world are certainly more serious than any card game.

Russ808 on September 5, 2013 at 4:03 PM

When WMDs were used in the remote mountains of Kurdistan or the deserts of Chad, the world had plausible deniability. No samples could be taken on site, independent observers weren’t allowed in.

There were in fact many of us who were outraged by Saddam’s use and urged action, but it isn’t clear what could have been done and lacking proof it wasn’t going to happen anyway.

But if you want to now let Assad off, scot-free, “no big deal,” think about the message you send. No one will ever again feel any intimidation or deterrence over what we might do if they used the stuff. We’re saying this is the new world of warfare, not our problem.

Great, Obama has transformed conservatives into a bunch of freakin’ hippies.

Adjoran on September 5, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Russ808 on September 5, 2013 at 4:03 PM

He didn’t expect someone to call his bluff, again.

D-fusit on September 5, 2013 at 4:07 PM

This is now about the national security of the United States…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:26 PM

No, this is about the comfort and security of our presidential poseur. Despite the fact that HE thinks that he did not personally impose a red line, I guarantee you that every single one of our enemies thinks that HE personally imposed a red line. As Ed so eloquently pointed out, the United States is a paper tiger only under the power of the current presidential poseur. We have our chance as Americans to rectify that problem at the next election.

Our enemies would not see America as a paper tiger with a man like Ted Cruz at the helm, with Allen West as his second in command.

NOMOBO on September 5, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Adjoran on September 5, 2013 at 4:05 PM

We start killing Arabs again, that will improve our standing where?

We have a President who likes to shoot his mouth off…”the police acted stupidly,” or “If I had a son he’d look just like Trayvon,” or, “I stand solidly behind the Occupy Wall Street youth,” or “Don’t call my bluff,” or “I call upon the military regime in Cairo to return President Morsi to his position” and, golly dammit, sooo many more…

And you want American men and women, our finest men and women, to lay down their lives if need be because your President can’t keep his damn mouth shut?

My God…the ignorance that passes for intelligence is strong in this nation.

coldwarrior on September 5, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Defeating Assad terrorist regime means a defeating the Iranian terrorists regime and their Hizballah terrorists… A major strategic victory for the US and Israel…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:03 PM

I hear they’re putting stupid juice in the Kool Aid these days.

Key West Reader on September 5, 2013 at 4:16 PM

No, but then maybe you shouldn’t clamor so vigorosuly (cuz persuasive it is no) in favor of war. War is hell, period. And we really, really, really don’t need to be in this one. At all.

jimver on September 5, 2013 at 3:51 PM

I disagree with MNJG completely on this issue, but chicken-hawk arguments drive me nuts. I served (twice, in two different branches – once enlisted once officer) and I hate it when the left trots out the chicken-hawk argument.

Monkeytoe on September 5, 2013 at 4:17 PM

Obama’s ally in Syria, the “moderate” (Obama’s term) Al-Nusra Front, is “the most aggressive and successful arm of the rebel force” … a true terrorist organization – designated as such by both the United States & the United Nations. Here’s a Travel Warning from Obama’s State Department:

Syria
March 01, 2013

snip..snip-snip..snip … There is also a threat from terrorism, including groups like al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) affiliated al-Nusrah Front. Since November 2011, al-Nusrah Front has claimed nearly 600 attacks – ranging from more than 40 suicide attacks to small arms and improvised explosive device operations – in major city centers including Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Dara, Homs, Idlib, and Dayr al-Zawr. Public places such as government buildings, shopping areas, and open spaces have been targeted.

Maybe a lot has changed since March 01, 2013?

Karmi on September 5, 2013 at 4:19 PM

But if you want to now let Assad off, scot-free, “no big deal,” think about the message you send. No one will ever again feel any intimidation or deterrence over what we might do if they used the stuff. We’re saying this is the new world of warfare, not our problem.

Great, Obama has transformed conservatives into a bunch of freakin’ hippies.

Adjoran on September 5, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Are you the One We’ve Been Waiting For? You know..,. the One with the Proof that it was Assad that used the chems and not the jihadist opposition? Can’t wait to see it!

Key West Reader on September 5, 2013 at 4:19 PM

Great, Obama has transformed conservatives into a bunch of freakin’ hippies.

Adjoran on September 5, 2013 at 4:05 PM

He has done no such thing, and you know it.

Schadenfreude on September 5, 2013 at 4:20 PM

A friend asked this morning what Obama was going to hit with a missile strike, considering the advance warning the U.S. has issued.

The answer is: it doesn’t matter.

This is not a military mission. It is a political mission.

There is no requirement that the missiles hit anything. Only that he fire them.

It’s about saving the face Obama no longer has in the World (outside of the 90210 zip code). If you wrote this as fiction, nobody would believe it.

IndieDogg on September 5, 2013 at 4:22 PM

Still this does not make the point that Al Qaeda terrorists are a majority among the rebels… This article is telling you what the Al Qaeda terrorists are doing in the areas they control but it is expected from these evil bustards… I am also certain that most Syrians do not want to live under Al Qaeda rule…

mnjg on September 5, 2013 at 3:40 PM

1. We don’t know much about the rebels and don’t know who will end up in charge if Assad falls. Based on past examples, it is far more likely for AQ affiliated groups to end up in charge than any kind of western-friendly group.

2. Obama does not intend to engage in military action to defeat Assad. His admin has been telling anyone who will listen for the last 2 weeks that it would be a very limited strike, would not target Assad and would not do much. So, your theory makes no sense anyway.

3. Looking at 1 and 2, what exactly is the U.S. Interest here? I agree with you that if your fantasy of a pro-western Syria where Hizbolla lost out and AQ lost out and Iran lost out would be wonderful. But, let’s face reality, the chances of that happening are not high. And – do you really have confidence in the Obama administration getting us there, despite the long odds?

4. Where is the evidence that Assad used chemical weapons? There is compelling evidence that he didn’t – that the rebels did – but I have not seen compelling evidence that it was Assad.

5. What do we do if Russia decides that they will retaliate by bombing rebels? Do we put boots on the ground? Send in more missiles and escalate it?

Again, I agree that if your theory was correct, I’d support bombing Syria. I have seen no evidence anywhere that your theory is even close to reality.

Monkeytoe on September 5, 2013 at 4:24 PM

It’s about saving the face Obama no longer has in the World (outside of the 90210 zip code). If you wrote this as fiction, nobody would believe it.

IndieDogg on September 5, 2013 at 4:22 PM

But the reality is, the damage is already done. Firing missiles into the desert is not going to undo the damage to Obama’s credibility. It might rally his base around him here at home (yay!! look how tough and commander in chiefy O! is!!”). But Russia, China, Syria, Iran, and every other nation is going to still consider him a weak idiot.

Monkeytoe on September 5, 2013 at 4:27 PM

is going to still consider him a weak idiot.

Monkeytoe on September 5, 2013 at 4:27 PM

Us as well, Conservatives that is. Add reckless also.

Bmore on September 5, 2013 at 4:31 PM

I always thought that the Secretary of State was a top diplomatic position. Instead of diplomacy we are getting war mongering. And that war mongering is being done by a former war-protester, John F’ing Kerry.

Dasher on September 5, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Schadenfreude

Bmore on September 5, 2013 at 4:32 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3