This says it all, eh?
One off the cuff presidential red line crossed (so lack of a TelePrompter got us here?) and President Obama becomes the reluctant hawk. (Chicken Hawk, anyone?)
Even inept civilian control of the military is a duty for our officers to follow--but they don't have to like it:
They are outraged by the fact that what may happen is an act of war and a willingness to risk American lives to make up for a slip of the tongue about “red lines.” These acts would be for retribution and to restore the reputation of a president. Our serving professionals make the point that killing more Syrians won’t deter Iranian resolve to confront us. The Iranians have already gotten the message.
Let me add that it can't be easy to hear Kerry, Pelosi, and our president urging war when these souls savaged our military for their efforts to fight past wars. How much more difficult is it for our officer corps to digest?
I mean come on, our military was told we could pivot to the Pacific because the tide of war was receding in the Middle East. And here we are.
Our military will strike. They will do it well. But it won't achieve much. And even if no civilians die in the strikes, Assad will have a dead baby parade, and many of those on the left who willingly suspended disbelief to follow their man to kinetic action will condemn our military for doing the best it could in a difficult--if not to say a no-win--situation.
I continue to believe that our best course of action is to arm non-jihadi rebels and seek the overthrow of Assad. If we do that, we don't need to directly strike Assad. Regime change is the best retaliation. And we don't need to have a Congressional debate on those strikes that threatens our reputation no matter how the vote goes at this point.
And this entire clown show puts our military in a bad position regarding obeying civilian orders--they serve America and not the president, remember. Namely, do they obey their commander in chief or the Congress that explicitly refuses to grant permission to strike when the president asked? If President Obama had struck quickly, the military could have been secure in obeying orders given the gray area between commander-in-chief who can issue operational orders and Congressional authority to authorize war. Opponents of war can say (as they always do wherever they are on the political spectrum) that no military action is legitimate if not authorized by Congress, but this just has never been so. But by asking for permission, getting refused, and then acting anyway, President Obama would erase that grey area as thoroughly as Assad has crossed a red line on chemical weapons use.
Nor do I understand how people can say we have no national interests in the Syria outcome.
One, smashing a persistent foe of America who has the blood of hundreds if not thousands of American troops on his hands is an opportunity we are foolish to throw away.
Two, taking Iran's major asset for fighting the West out of his hands by ousting Assad is a win.
Three, isolating Hezbollah and Hamas by eliminating their Syria supply line and rear area is a win.
Four, defeating Assad helps Lebanon have a chance at a real future.
Five, a regional sponsor of terror is eliminated.
Six, we get a chance to regain our footing in Iraq which is under tremendous pressure from Iran to help Assad survive. Handing Iran a defeat will strengthen Iraqis who want to resist Iran and maybe claw back a little lost ground that we threw away by withdrawing from Iraq completely nearly two years ago.
Seven, by eliminating Assad's government we clear the decks to offer open and clear support for a new government's efforts to fight the largely foreign jihadi groups that are gaining strength as the fight goes on.
Eight, we gain the opportunity to neutralize Assad's chemical arsenal by conditioning aid on cooperation in getting rid of WMD sites.
Nine, we might finally settle the question of just what those truck convoys to Syria from Iraq in 2003 (before and after our invasion) were carrying. Nothing good, I'd say.
Ten, we strike a blow against Russia's efforts to become the leader of the anti-American forces who simply resist us to keep us from being dominant. How evil these people are to see an opportunity in defending a disgusting, murderous, chemical weapons-using regime like Assad's to achieve this should tell you all you need to know on that.
Russia's Syria base may not be much, but it is all Russia has and the loss of it would hurt Russian prestige. Good. Russia may not be an enemy strong enough for us to worry about militarily, but they are no friend. And it is frustratingly dense of them to act like we're enemies. But if they persist in this fantasy, let them pay a price.
Eleven, we keep Jordan from being destabilized by the ongoing fight that might spill over their border.
Given all these factors, it is clear we have an interest in bending events in Syria to our benefit. We may not have sufficient interests to send in the Army (and I don't think we do--or have the national morale to sustain such a war even if our interests were high enough to justify invasion), but it should have been a no-brainer two years ago to seize the opportunity to hurt Assad. And no, it is not too late to do any good.
