It has the vibe of an outreach to an alien and dangerous people who the president doesn't really understand in order to persuade them (us) of his good will.
As we prepare to be wowed by all the earnestness that can be projected via TelePrompter, let's recall my pet peeve about what President Obama calls his proposed strikes:
"I believe that when you have limited proportional strike like this ... not some long drawn-out affair ... we should be willing to bear that responsibility."
Few things make my blood boil like the whole concept of "proportional" strikes in response to an enemy action.
And there is no use denying Syria is our enemy. Or do you think President Obama is eager to bomb friends or even potential partners?
It is nonsense to speak of our military actions that are "proportional" to what the enemy has done in order to be lawful. Yet this is an article of faith among some who pretend to be military and foreign policy experts.
We need to do what is effective. If that is a single cruise missile that kills Assad in his bathroom, that's fine. If it involves carpet bombing the 4th Armored Division, well then do it.
I can only guess that the notion that military action has to be proportional to what the enemy has done in order to be legitimate stems from a misreading of guidelines on lawful use of military force that I was taught decades ago.
Namely, doctrine was that to follow the rules of war military force has to be proportional. But not proportional to what the enemy has done. No, it should be proportional to what is required to achieve the objective.
Let me quote the relevant part of my Soldier's Manual of Common Tasks (Skill Level 1):
Attack only combat targets. Use the firepower necessary to accomplish your mission but avoid needless destruction.
This is skill level 1, people. Not the Jedi Knights' School of Advanced Military Studies curriculum.
You can almost hear the word "proportional" when you read that. But the proportionality is in relation to achieving a military objective. If you need overwhelming force to knock out military targets, it is lawful to do so as long as you don't inflict needless destruction.
What you shouldn't do is level an entire block of houses because you think a single sniper is in there somewhere. If this police action (tip to Instapundit) was a military operation, it would likely run afoul of my guidance given that the actuarial tables probably would have taken care of the problem if the police had waited a few hours. And there was bonus gas use, too.
So for God's sake, let's banish the term "proportional strikes" as we debate Syria action. And "exit strategy," of course, which rivals "proportionality" in my lexicon of strategic concepts that idiots believe.
