३० ऑगस्ट, २०१३
Obama has "not made any decisions" on Syria.
But he's "not considering any open-ended commitment." And "In no event are we considering any kind of military action that would involve boots on the ground, that would involve a long-term campaign."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३९ टिप्पण्या:
It's kinda hard for Obama to lead from behind when he's the only one out on the limb.
Good lord, what an idiot.
He didn't so much draw a red line as make a box and put himself in it.
Well this is turning out to be the most awkward prelude to military action ever. "General Jarrett report to your office"
In other words, he's looking for a way out without admitting he stuck his foot in his mouth.
I hear the French, his only ally (Lurch must be ecstatic), want a "proportional and firm action", but sound as if this is going to be a largely American venture.
If it happens, will we even know about it?
Supposedly, he isn't even going on TV to announce it.
Present!
I am beginning to wonder just what there possibly could be they could come up with that would not make them look ven more ridiculous than they already do.
Why do I have a feeling this means "I'm gonna make more speeches and pout until I get my way".
Why do I also have a feeling that the rest of the world - even our friends and allies - view Obama with contempt for his incompetence.
But Nancy Pelosi is reported to have said he must do something (and we'll understand it after it is past).
How do you take out chemical weapons without boots on the ground?! There are three methods to chemical weapons disposal (VX and Sarin). 1) water neutralization. 2) chemical neutralization. 3) incineration. It's not simply something that can be bombed. Further, if Assad is clever, he'll simply move the material to population centers or move innocent people to chemical weapons locations. I don't know how boots (even if those boots belong to special ops/CIA) on the ground can be avoided and the effort is effective and we don't kill more people than the chemical weapons attack.
Gas Attack on Women and Children!!!
"A Day That Will Live In Infamy."
(For a week or so.)
I just as soon he did nothing at this point. No one is afraid of him, even the Syrian's he's threatening to bomb. The more he talks the more out of his league he appears. Do us all a favor and just go back to the golf course, please.
It may remind Michelle of their courtship.
Whatever the response is, we're told, it will be non-mockable. Really.
Which two of the following three will have their wills to fight reduced following the Flight of The Tomomhawks?
1. The United States Of America
2. The Syrian Government
3. The Syrian Opposition
Because how we really make a difference - for good or ill - doesn't matter. Just so we don't get our feet dirty.
It's easy to convince one's self that everything can be contained before the shooting starts and the bombs explode. Back at the start of the Civil War a prominent Southerner announced that a single handkerchief could mop up all the blood that would be shed.
Don't get in until you have a strategy to get out.
I don't watch MSNBC, but I'm wondering if any of their Einsteins have declared the British House of Commons (and by extension, those who voted them into office) RACIST for not supporting Obama?
Obama should threaten to give a speech and a drone attack a day until Assad surrenders.
The only usable asset we have is our airpower. And Putin will call that poker hand until Obama folds.
I know, we get Assad to attend the UN in New York and kill him when he arrives...that's a lot like Drone War.
So what our Chicagoan President IS considering is a brief attack of cruise missiles from the five warships that have been sent to the eastern Mediterranean. The south side of Chicago is notorious for drive-by shootings. This would just be a sail-by shooting.
Gang-war strategy from the leader of the free world. Sheesh.
They democrats think we should just trust Obama, Biden, Kerry and the intelligence community when they've been so honest and forthcoming on everything up to now. In spite of what they've said, there are two key things that are NOT being talked about.
1. There is evidence Saudi intelligence supplied the chemical weapons to Syrian opposition.
2. The US military leadership is pushing back on Obama that he must get Congress' formal approval and get funds approved for this adventure, or all the troop movement to date are just drills.
From the transcript of Obama's remarks:
"Now, I have not made a final decision about various actions that might be taken to help enforce that norm. But as I've already said, I have had my military and our team look at a wide range of options. We have consulted with allies."
My military?
I suspect Obama does not have a clue as to what to really do. He is so wishie-washie right now I can see why no other country will step up to the plate but France.
You see France won't actually DO anything, only say they are with you. Notice France always sell their guns in 'new, unused, dropped only once' condition.
The Elder said...
"Gang-war strategy from the leader of the free world."
Leader? Leading from no one's behind and with no one behind him.
It would be nice to think that this is an opportunity for Obama to learn something, specifically that when you have a real job shooting your mouth off has consequences. You can't just say that such-and-such is a red line and if you cross it you'll be sorry, you actually have to do something when the line is crossed.
Unfortunately, the price for Obama's loose lips will not be paid by Obama, and so I think he will learn nothing.
So, he admits that he is not motivated by humanitarian concerns. Does he hold a personal grudge against Assad, while favoring rebels, terrorists, and Al Qaeda? Is it simply about his ego?
Surely he knows that the Obama doctrine, which is the Clinton doctrine on steroids, poking people with missiles and dropping bombs on their heads, will not accomplish his purported goal, and will have consequences for Americans, Syrians, Libyans, and others.
Not only will it fail, but it will invite a response from his former allies in the form of Bengazi, and not a 9/11 which was a delayed act of retributive change.
It's not going to be open-ended and there will be no boots on the ground. That's two decisions right there.
Somewhere, floating in the ether, splitting the difference between the Lefty, liberal internationalist anti-imperialist human rights coalition of liberal managers atop the civil rights crowd...
...and many people who know what a lawless and difficult world this is, the knowledgable, the few really wise, non-partisan crafters of policy and players of the game, the dedicated, the bitter and clinging military, the Americans who can make things run with strategy, courage, sacrifice, competence and leadership...
...twists this man, naked, leading from behind with a curious mix of incompetence, incuriousness and inexperience, this crafter of speeches and words in which he's trapped himself.
Cue the anti-war protestors in 3, 2... oh, who am I kidding?
If it weren't for double standards, leftists wouldn't have any standards at all.
I just as soon he did nothing at this point. No one is afraid of him, even the Syrian's he's threatening to bomb.
How could they possibly be afraid? Between leaks out of State and the Pentagon, plus his own telegraphing, Assad knows he's planning to lob a few tomahawks and call it a day.
Bin Laden takedown - golf and Spades with Reggie!
Benghazi disaster - ???????????????
Embassies closed because of threats - golf!
Briefing Congress on CW in Syria - meeting with Magic!
Is it me or is Saint Barry trying to avoid the job?
Didn't he describe himself as "lazy"?
One military analyst on CNN said we do have bombs that can incinerate chemical weapons but they have to be delivered via planes, not rockets. So using them would require taking out Assad's anti-aircraft weapons.
I don't know. I can't believe we are going to have to do this because Obama slipped a red line into a speech. If Libya had turned out better, I would have more confidence in the strategy of bombing and leaving. I suspect Britain would, too.
What we got here is a teaching moment for our community-organizing president. Will he learn to think before opening his mouth? Unlikely. Sigh.
I a bit surprised that the media does not call for an open debate on this subject, after bombing Syria is not an easy choice. Shouldn't obama make a case to the American people? Eh, who am I kidding, no matter what, the media will support obama's actions, and it will be always Bush's fault.
So he hasn't made any decisions, except that he has decided not to put any boots on the ground. Ok.
The one meagre benefit I see to this is that the liberal leaders of the European nations are essentially having their long-standing bluff called. They love to decry the US and unilateral US actions, and in the past they have often done so even while hoping that the US would come in and DO something, because they simply can't or won't. Now, we have a feckless administration who is unlikely to take any strong or forceful action. Let the Europeans cope with the problem for a change, I think that's a good thing.
It's fascinating to watch the dynamic. In general, the left in the U.S. is opposed to any foreign military involvement unless it is entirely unhampered by any sort of U.S. national interest. If we go in for PURELY humanitarian motives, with no taint of "oil" or "anti-Communism," then sure, they say, we have a moral obligation to protect the innocents of the world. But if we have even the SLIGHTEST hint of something of our own at stake, then WAR BAD! GREED MONGERS!
Here, there's no U.S. national interest that will be furthered by bombing. And any bombing, unless there's a miraculous surgical strike that kills Assad and all of his top leadership with one hit, is not going to actually change anything.
I'm going to cut BO some slack. After all, he's primarily relying on John F'ing Kerry as his point man.
Hamlet.
I thought he decided for a response just muscular enough not to be mocked.
I'm for dropping bombs on Syria, but if you're going to do it, don't do it half assed like Obama is doing.
And don't telegraph what we're not going to do to Syria. That is beyond stupid.
Don't say where we're going to bomb and then give Syria time to move equipment that we were going to bomb.
And Obama needs to stop vacillating in public. That just makes him look ineffectual and weak.
PatHMV wrote:
Here, there's no U.S. national interest that will be furthered by bombing. And any bombing, unless there's a miraculous surgical strike that kills Assad and all of his top leadership with one hit, is not going to actually change anything.
I would disagree that there is no national interest in seeing Syria's regime get toppled (not that I see that happening with targeted limited bomb strikes where the goal is NOT regime change. Syria is a proxy of Iran, and has been a thorn in our side for the longest. Removing Assad could limit Iran's power. It could also give us some leverage over Iran and it's nukes (as in, we gave you an ultimatum, you refused to acquiesce. Look what happened to Syria).And long term it would be better with Assad out of the picture.
Also, while I don't see us taking out the regime with bombing we can take out its airforce making it harder to wage war against the rebels.
That being said, based on all the things Obama has done poorly surrounding his decision (or lack thereof) to bomb Syria I don't have a lot of faith, that even if where theoretically possible to do damage to Syria with these bombs that we actaully wil. And so, if that's the case, why do it?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा