More on the "Obama problem" (aka the Syria problem)

Things appear to be changing fast on the Obama administration’s approach to Syria.  Around 2 years ago, Obama said Assad must go, and we  began shipping small arms to the opposition. After the chemical attack,  first it was a missile attack and then manned bombers were mentioned.   What will happen if Syria doesn’t comply with the prospective new chemical weapons disarmament?

New reports strongly suggest that there is fighting between various opposition factions in Syria.  Somehow the administration is going to control whoever takes over if Assad goes?  Somehow the administration will control the brutal violence involved in what has now also become a sectarian conflict in addition to a political one?  How will they do this. “Boots on the ground?”  Of course, the objective now seems to be chemical disarmament.  Have the objectives changed?

Even the folks at Time magazine, in their latest issue, note that the President has been botching this whole thing from the beginning.  First, we attack.  Then we’ll wait for Congressional approval.  Then we’ll use diplomacy.  Why wasn’t diplomacy the first option?  Go the  U.N. or NATO, get approval and then force Assad to negotiate?  It should have been a wake-up call when our closest ally, and most frequent military partner, Britain, refused to buy in.

 Progress has apparently been made in the negotiations.  The U.S and Russia will somehow oversee Syria’s chemical weapon disarmament.  Can we really trust the Soviets and Syrians? Will the Soviets sell out one of their most important Middle East Allies?  Will the delay just give the Syrians more time to hide a good portion of the chemical weapons?   How long will this be drawn out?  What will be the next option adopted by the Administration if this falls through?

Let’s look briefly at the President’s recently televised speech on the situation.   He finally identified the national interest that supposedly justifies military force.   We must punish Assad for the use of chemical weapons in order to deter him and others from using chemical weapons against American forces in the future.  This is very speculative, and hardly justifies military force against a sovereign nation.  Saddam Hussein didn’t use his chemical weapons (if he had them) against American troops.  I doubt most opponents would risk using chemical weapons against U.S. military forces.   I know of no instance of their use against American forces in either Afghanistan or Iraq.   This alleged “national interest” justifying military intervention doesn’t fly.  If this interest is so obvious, why haven’t the British, the U.N. and perhaps NATO jumped on the bandwagon. Their troops are also vulnerable to chemical weapons.  Perhaps they have no interest, because they have no “boots on the ground” contingencies?

The President’s speech wreaked of propaganda.  Propagandists play on emotion to overcome the lack of rationality. He repeatedly used emotion-arousing arguments.  He made repeated  reference to the innocent people and children who were killed.  Our emotions tell us that Assad must pay retribution for this.  When reason provides a weak justification, try emotion.  But revenge this is not a national interest justifying military intervention.   Emotion is not a good basis for a very serious action.  Further, Assad needs to be punished. Will any of the plans inflict personal harm on Assad?  How many innocent people who took no part in the chemical attack, and might actually have opposed it if asked, will be killed by missile or bomb attacks?   Assad is an international criminal.  We will have to topple his regime to get him and then we should send him before and international or Syrian court.  How much American involvement will be necessary to topple Assad?  Given the split in the Syrian opposition, they will need a lot of help to topple Assad.

American credibility is only temporarily at issue.  We will have a new President in 2016 who will hopefully provide rational policies, leadership and credibility.  However, Obama’s credibility is the real issue,  Thus far, he has totally blown it.  He  lurches from option to option desperately seeking some way out.

Finally, for many liberals, protecting Obama and providing spin and damage control are priorities. Will that foolishness lead us into military invovlement?  Will we use military force to save Obama's reputation?  For many misguided military  people and conservatives (and some liberals), the primary source/expression of patriotism is the military and supporting military action.  Unfortunately, too many people get their egos salved when their nation whips some two-bit dictator or “kicks ass.”  This misguided approach costs too much American blood and treasure.  Too many innocent people become collateral damage.  The source/expression of our patriotism should be our "exceptionalism:"  we are the freest people on the face of the earth, we trust our law-abiding citizens with defensive weapons, we have the oldest, most successful democracy in human history.  We saved the world from German and Japanese oppression in the 40's.  Being a bully for no good reason is not something to be proud of.