Posted on 08/29/2013 10:13:46 PM PDT by JohnHuang2
The Obama administration’s plan to launch a military strike against Syria is being received with serious reservations by many in the U.S. military, which is coping with the scars of two lengthy wars and a rapidly contracting budget, according to current and former officers.
========================================================================================
Wow! Obama sure knows how to use the element of surprise, doesn't he? Days and days of leaks, from 'well-placed sources,' 'not authorized to speak,' giving out details about the likely targets and approximate timing of when Obama will launch his war to keep America's shores safe from the mighty Syrian army.
Actually, the whole excuse Obama and his mouthpieces are using to start another war is that many people were killed by an alleged chemical attack near Damascus last week and not one of them was an American. Obama sees a red line there. We must rush to war!
Had an American ambassador and three other brave Americans been killed in Syria, Obama and his Secretary of State would be cutting Syrian TV ads apologizing for the obscure YouTube video which mysteriously caused the whole thing. That Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate a former Republican President of the United States may have been the real reason liberals so hysterically opposed military action against Iraq. Libbies see no red lines in either case.
After the alleged chemical attack in Syria, liberals and McCainiac "Republicans" claim Obama doesn't have the "luxury" of not bombing Syria, which, if memory serves, had not attacked us on 9/11, and is not a threat against the U.S. (which is the principle reason liberals want to start the bombing already). Yet the media continue to falsely label any military action against Syria as "retaliatory". If Syria had not attacked us, how is bombing Syria "retaliatory"?
And now the AP reports that "multiple U.S. officials" indicate "the evidence against Assad is 'not a slam dunk,' and questions remain regarding who actually controls some of Syria's chemical weapons stores and whether Assad himself ordered the attack."
Buttressing this compelling case for interfering in another country's bloody civil war, U.S. intel guys told the AP they don't know the chemical weapons' exact locations, don't know if Assad already moved the alleged weapons while Obama kept running his mouth off, don't know if Assad even ordered the attack, and don't know if cruise missile strikes based on sketchy 'evidence' may end up mistakenly causing a lethal chemical attack because they've lost track of who controls the chemical weapons supplies given the constantly shifting front lines. All this lack of evidence prompted John Kerry to declare the evidence to be "undeniable". He vowed that Obama would take unspecified action soon. He said what is happening is a "moral obscenity" that "should shock the conscience of the world," though it was hard to tell whether he was talking about Assad or Miley Cyrus.
In the face of overwhelmingly missing evidence, Obama told PBS reporters "we have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried this out." Then the decisive leader qualified that by using the word "if." He said he wanted to send a clear message in a "very limited way." He claimed his bombs won't cause regime change. Just a "shot across the bow," to make America safe "over the long term." He also says he doesn't want the lovely 'rebel' lads - killers allied with al-Qaeda -- taking over either. He also says Assad must go. But Minister of Misinformation Jay Carney recently ruled out "regime change." Obama says he's scared that Syrian chemical weapons could be "directed at us" if they fell into terrorists' hands, implying they're in safe hands, meaning Assad's. But he says Assad must leave. Chuck Hagel says "if any action would be taken against Syria, it would be an international collaboration." But Obama says he might go it alone with unauthorized force. Chuck Hagel adds that America is ready to start bombing immediately. Obama says he hasn't made up his mind. To compensate for all these mixed messages and because of the idiotic red line he drew a year ago, Obama wants to start bombing Syria.
Against this backdrop, the only thing stunning and shocking about the U.K. Parliament's rejecting the use of force is that the American media seem stunned and shocked. Likely Syrian targets and strike duration leaked all over the place, all week. Sketchy to non-existent "evidence." Intelligence apparatus's credibility in the crapper. No defined mission. Don't want regime change. Want Assad to go. Want regime change. Want Assad to stay. Worst of all, having to fight alongside the French.
In Syria, America's enemies are trying to kill each other off and Obama decides he wants to crash the party. His media camp followers keep whining hysterically that we've gotta interfere in Syria's civil war to bail out "America's credibility", when it's really all about Obama's credibility, which was always non-existent in any event.
Obama famously promised the Russians that he'd have lots of "flexibility" during his second term. But, from the looks of it, the flexibility has gone the other way. Flexing their newfound flexibility, the Brits gave Obama the middle-finger salute yesterday. The Russians are flexibly running circles around Mr. Smart Diplomacy pants at the U.N. He's even lost the newly flexible French. Can't lead the Brits. Can't lead the French. Can't even get his Samantha Powers to attend U.N. meetings -- too busy flexibly presiding over the No. 1 global hotspot, Ireland. Obama soon will learn that even cruise missiles can't restore what you never possessed in the first place -- credibility. Three and a half more years of this global laughingstock to go.
Anyway, that's...
My Two Cents...
"JohnHuang2"
The military has already been gutted; in just 6 months readiness has been destroyed by Sequestration that came on top of two previous massive cuts in military spending by Obama (2009 and 2011).
Sequestration was the final knife to readiness. The military is in much, much worse shape than even the leadership realizes.
Bush assembled a coalition despite Dim efforts to protect our enemies. Obama couldn’t assemble a ping-pong team of two because he made everyone love us so much and eradicated world terrorism ...
It would only result in a purge of the good guys in the military. I'll settle for such "disobedience if/when they want to use the military against the People.
Oh, come on. I’m sure all those newly minted gay and lesbian commanders will sort this out toot sweet. [/s]
copied from other thread:
Coalition in Afghanistan was Albania, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Jordan, Republic of Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mongolia, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Sweden, Republic of Macedonia, Tonga, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Georgia, Poland, Romania, Turkey, Australia and Bush got made fun of.
Been there. Done that. Got the T-shirt in Mogadishu and the Balkans.
Sarah Palin is right, let God sort this one out between the Sunnis and the Alawite. Alawites dominate the government of Syria and hold key military positions.
From wikipedia:
In the late 1970s, an Islamic uprising by the Muslim Brotherhood was aimed against the government. Islamists attacked civilians and off-duty military personnel, and civilians were also killed in retaliatory strike by security forces. The uprising had reached its climax in the 1982 Hama massacre,,when some 10,000 - 40,000 people were killed by regular Syrian Army troops.
In a major shift in relations with both other Arab states and the Western world, Syria participated in the US-led Gulf War against Saddam Hussein. Syria participated in the multilateral Madrid Conference of 1991, and during the 1990s engaged in negotiations with Israel. These negotiations failed, and there have been no further direct Syrian-Israeli talks since President Hafez al-Assad's meeting with then President Bill Clinton in Geneva in March 2000
Ditto!
Well put. Sometimes best to do nothing.
Grand Slam!
Thank you so much for your wonderful essay, dear JohnHuang2!
You are the most awesome of the most awesome! It’s so good to read your thoughts. Thank you so much! ;o)
“Russia asks Turkey for info on sarin terrorists”
http://www.turkishweekly.net/news/151261/russia-asks-turkey-for-info-on-sarin-terrorists.html
“Russia has called on Turkey to share its findings in the case of Syrian rebels who were seized on the Turkish-Syrian border with a 2kg cylinder full of nerve gas sarin.”
So..........who dun it?
I smile every time I see your nic. ;o)
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.