Posted on 09/02/2013 9:23:34 PM PDT by Kaslin
The grossly obese Syrian officer was coming in the door of the King Khalid Military City exchange while I was coming out. I saw instantly that this was no soldier; this was a thug, a threat only to the unarmed civilians that are his kind’s prey. My eyes fell downward from his cruel face to the piece of flair gracing his olive green fatigues.
“Nice Assad button,” I sneered. Real warriors don’t wear pictures of dictators on their uniform. He glared back at me with his dark, rat eyes, not understanding my words but fully appreciating my contempt. Though Syria was a putative coalition partner, I knew I was staring at an enemy.
Not much has changed since Operation Desert Storm. The Syrian regime’s “soldiers” are still just punks fit only to oppress the defenseless, unable to even hold their own against a ragged band of barely-armed insurgents. But like the vast majority of Americans, I have grave concerns about attacking them.
The President was right to belatedly call for a vote of Congress. Unlike many people who I greatly respect, the Constitution’s carefully-written text appears to me to leave only the power to react to sudden threats with the president. By investing the power to declare war in the Congress, the Constitution places the decision to enter wars of choice squarely with the people’s representatives. As a veteran, I also understand the importance to the troops of knowing that they have voted to support you.
The President must now tell us why we should make the choice for war. And he needs to do it personally by addressing the nation before a joint session of Congress.
There can be no dodging this responsibility, no clever attempts to secure credit in case of success while shifting the blame in case of failure. We are talking about war, and the President is the Commander-In-Chief. As the commander, he – and only he – is solely responsible for everything the military does and does not do.
The toxic atmosphere of suspicion engendered by the President’s radical liberal governing style has left him no well of trust from which to draw. Sadly, but not without cause, the first unspoken thoughts that arose when the President reversed course were that this was some sort of trick designed to saddle his political opponents with the blame for a policy that was already in tatters. That was a natural consequence of five years of political choices by the Administration – when support is suddenly required, don’t expect to instantly receive it from the people you and your mainstream media pals have spent half a decade demonizing.
The Administration is full of smart people, but what it needs are wise people who understand something about human nature. Scorched earth politics burn away the relationships and trust one will need to lean on after he unilaterally draws a red line and then finds himself needing support from his opponents when the enemy steps across.
But that cannot be helped now – we are where we are, and that is on the brink of yet another war. If the President truly believes this is the right course of action, he must literally step up to the podium and place his credibility behind it. He must personally take on the responsibility for this war.
There can be no voting present. Like George W. Bush, the President himself must ask the Congress to go to war over an Arab dictator’s weapons of mass destruction. And he must, alone, bear the responsibility for the consequences.
He must answer the questions that naturally arise from his request. What form will this war take? How long will it last? What is the end state this war seeks to achieve?
These questions are basic queries that any strategist would ask. That we have no answers yet raises serious questions in and of itself.
Assad’s gang of murderers are scum, and they fully deserve whatever we might do to them. They used chemical weapons against civilians, a ghastly crime which justifies whatever penalty we choose to impose. That is not the point.
The point is whether chastising these degenerates is in our national interest. How will doing so be to the advantage of the United States of America?
That is the only standard by which we must measure our strategy. Sarin gas is horrific. So are bombs and bullets and bayonets, and their innocent victims are just as dead. We cannot punish every dictator who butchers his own people because if we tried to do so we would be doing nothing else.
Mr. President, how will it support American interests to attack Syria? This is not about our revulsion at brutality. It is about how much treasure and how many lives – especially American lives – we will sacrifice in order to attain … what? What is the goal? What conditions do we seek to establish that make mothers weeping over their son’s and daughter’s caskets worthwhile?
Assad’s regime, through its support of terrorists in Lebanon, Iraq and elsewhere, have caused hundreds, even thousands of American deaths. If it was simply a matter of destroying the likes of the bloated Syrian officer I met in Saudi Arabia the answer would be clear: Take them out.
But it is not so simple. Our regime enemies are engaged in a death struggle with our al-Qaeda enemies. Do we want to tip the scales from one set of psychotic criminals toward another, possibly worse, set of psychotic criminals? Why shouldn’t we just sit back and watch as our sworn enemies kill each other?
Only the President can answer those questions. And he must do so, personally, alone on the podium, before a joint session of Congress and before the American people whose sons and daughters will fight this war.
I don’t think Obama is up to it.
Another speech from Der Führer? Nein, Danke!
‘Let Allah sort it out’
Right on
Let the savages sort it out among themselves. We see how well being the World Police has worked out for us so far. We’re on the verge of complete economic collapse and can’t afford it anyhow though I’m sure military weapons manufacturers will paint a completely different picture of how it will miraculously jumpstart the economy and create new jobs. That won’t do us a lot of good if we end up being nuked into oblivion...
Absolutely “no one” and I do mean “no one” I talk to wants American soldiers or aircraft anywhere near this OBayMe disaster. If OBayMe wants us there, let him go and he can take the RATs in Congress with him along with Linda Graham and McLame.
With a compliant, rubber stamp congress (of both parties), the president doesn’t have to “make his case” for anything these days.
He merely has to state whatever horse sh*t nonsense he wants, and everyone in the government genuflects in his direction.
The constitutional separation of powers means nothing anymore.
The republicans will cover for obama for two reasons. One, they don’t want to be called racists. Two, obama has dirt on them.
Really? Are Assad's thugs slaughtering Christians?
No, I seem to recall that its our jihadist allies that are doing that.
But the writer reserves his ad hominem for the ones who are "not" slaughtering Christians.
But he won’t because he is a politician and politicians are as dishonest and insincere about their foreign policy positions and motives as they are about their positions and motives on domestic fiscal and social issues.
Now that that's been said, I believe politics stops at the border. Once the decision is made to go, I'll keep my mouth shut because lack of support at home costs American lives. I only hope that if the decision is made to go to war, that the powers that be actually go to war and not some BS "police action", nation building, handcuffed rules of engagement, halfway jobs, and political correctness that have plagued these decisions of the past 50 years.
Do what needs to be done, or don't go.
Three. Too many neoconservatives.
Four. Saudi $$$$$$$
And where do we draw this authority to impose penalties upon other people?
The US ratified the UN Charter which makes it, whether we like it or not, the Law of the Land. Under that Charter, the UN is the sole arbiter of whether action can / should be taken. IOW, it would be unconstitutional for the Congress to declare war / authorize force (which is a declaration in and of itself) ...
If we are sucked into nation-building in Syria the strategists responsible deserve to be the first ones on the ground, rifle in hand. And so short of that, what? Lobbing a few missiles at already-vacated locations and declaring victory? This is absolute insanity. Any Congressman or Senator who votes in favor should be tarred, feathered, and run out of office on a rail.
100% do not agree.
Does the author point out that the other side is Al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood??
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.