Gun Control: A new method courtesy of the Syrian government.

Assad's brutally oppressive government has come up with a new strategy to disarm at least some portion of the opposition. 

Bipartisan deception in the Syria debate, Obama floundering.

According to FactCheck.org.,  both sides have used deception in the Syria debate. The highest profile ones are all Dems:  Obama, Pelosi and Kerry.
I could be wrong, but perhaps the biggest deception is the belief that you can trust the Soviets and Assad.  They will stall the chemical disarmament as long as possible while they work in getting around it. (e.g. ship weapons to Iran)  Obama has been conned.  When he has a slam dunk (Dem. control of both Houses of Congress) he wins, without it, he flounders (e.g. gun control, immigration reform).  He just doesn't know how to deal with tough cookies like Putin and Assad.

Small arms: Good or bad? Obama can't make up his mind

At the same time he supports domestic gun control and the proposed UN treaty of small arms, the Obama administration provides small arms to Syrian rebels.  One of the purposes of the UN treaty is to keep small arms out of the hands of dangerous groups.  The administration is doing precisely what the treaty purports to outlaw.  Of course, in the final analysis, treaties and statutes notwithstanding, the only important thing is whose ox is being gored.  Secondly, how many of these small arms will end up in the hands of U.S. opponents and "terrorists"?  If Assad falls, how will these arms be used?  These folks are not going to turn in these arms if and when Assad is defeated.  Not only is the administration hypocritical, it is foolish to let these additional arms loose in a nation drowning in violent chaos.  As many on both the Left and Right have noted, Obama's moves re the Syrian crisis have been one disaster, or potential disaster after another. 

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.

 

Sec'y of State Lying re his prior stand on Iraqi intervention?

According to the usually reliable FactCheck.org" "Secretary of State John Kerry says both he and Chuck Hagel, now the secretary of defense, “opposed the president’s decision to go into Iraq” as senators. But both voted to give President Bush the authority to use military force in Iraq."  Just the kind of guy we need in charge at State. And you might be thinking Putin and Assad can't be trusted. 

Mission Creep Already starting for Syria? Retaliation?

The New York Times and Time magazine (both Obama "supporters) and others are  claiming that the Pentagon is working on an expanded list of targets for Syria.  various reports mention Chemical weapons, and related troops and materiel,  and other crucial assets that have been moved are the apparent targets.  Targeting chemical weapons may result in their release into the Syrian environment.  Civilians may be the predominant victims. There is also talk of using aircraft in addition to missiles.  Mission creep setting in already.  Iran and Al Qaeda are already threatening retaliation. A U.S. attack will only heighten hate for America in the region.  This thing could quickly get out hand and turn into a regional crisis.  The Russians are sending naval units to the area. These developments should send up additional red flags to Congress and the American people.

Lessons from Afghanistan?

What started out as a justifiable intervention in Afghanistan has now become America's longest war (going on 12 years).  It has also become the most unpopular.  In Afghanistan, there was never even a humpty-dumpty to put back together again.  All the idealistic talk about nurturing democracy there was a delusion. Although we are out of Iraq, are the Iraqi people better off for our involvement?  Is democracy flourishing in our long-term ally Egypt?    The bad taste created by the Afghani and other debacles has made the public skeptical about intervention in Syria?  One suspects that give the horrendous brutality, threats of Iranian retaliation if the U.S. strikes, growing regional involvement (e.g. Lebanon's Hezbollah), transformation into a Sunni-Shiite war, etc., etc., etc,, that Syria can never be put back together again, by anyone, no matter what.  Recently increasing sectarian violence in Iraq, also sends disturbing messages.  In addition, recent news suggests more brutality by the Syrian rebels than previously revealed.  The rebels and their backers have tried to keep a lid on this news, but it is more than just Assad's propaganda. Syria is becoming a basket case that cannot be fixed by outside intervention.  Obama has thus far failed to get additional support at the G-20 meetings. Our closest ally, Britain has already opted out. It is far too late for missile strikes or even no-fly zones.  Congress and Obama should just suck it up.  Obama should admit he has blown it, and the politicians need to listen to the American public--except for humanitarian aid, no direct American involvement in Syria.

Obama continues to flounder, delay will only help Assad

Obama compounded his litany of errors by delaying attack and attempting to secure Congressional approval. Looks like a good domestic political move, but otherwise it is a disaster.  It appears that  the Dems and conservative repubs might just give him the go-ahead.  The attack will be largely symbolic in effect.  Assad and his military leadership may be vicious and bloodthirsty, but they are not stupid.  As this article, and many others suggest, given the extra time to prepare for a potential attack, the Syrian government is hiding and shifting hardware, equipment and troops.  Much of it is being moved to inhabited civilian areas.  Further, Syria has oodles of chemical weapons storage sites.  How many of these may be hit with the release of deadly gas?  In the end, the attacks may kill more civilians and destroy more civilian property than important military assets.  Not everything can be moved, but the leadership will have time to hide themselves and their key communication assets.  If the attack comes, it will do little to damage the government's military capacity and may inflict tremendous civilian casualties.  It may provide a symbolic lift for the rebels, but, as suggested in a prior post, this attack will, on balance, only make things worse for civilians, regional stability and international relations.  It will provide new propaganda fodder for Muslim extremists and make it clear that the administration doesn't have a clue.  Given our national debt problems, further involvement and the slipper slope is  the last thing we need.  Thee major bills from Afghanistan have yet to be paid.

 I think we can expect the libertarians and tea party to vote against  Obama's request.  Most of the recent polls I have seen show that most of the public is against the attack.  Obama painted himself and us into the corner with his remarks about red lines and how Assad must go.  I hope Congress is not foolish enough to bail him out with a vote for the attack.

Congress Should say NO to Obama re Syria. Time to find a new approach.

There seems to be widespread consensus that, overall, Obama has handled the Syrian “problem” badly.  (I would argue that Syria is not the problem, Obama’s handling of the situation and the American obsession with trying to be the world’s policeman, problem solver and implanter of democracy is the problem.)  Even Time agreees.  Isn't it  ironic how the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize (what a joke) and a candidate who was touted as the "Peace President" is rattling the sabers.  Dindn't welearn anything from Vietnam, Iraq or Mogadishu?  Congress should soundly refuse to approve to Obama's request American military intervention, and strongly state its opposition to any direct American military involvement there without Congressional approval. Syria is a chaotic, unstable, disaster.  This humpty-dumpty will not be put back together again for decades, if ever.  In part it has developed into a Sunni v. Shiite war that we cannot fix.

Humanitarian motives are good, but often things backfire and in the volatile and religiously polarized Middle East we cannot control the outcome.  I hate to sound cruel, but massive casualties in a civil war in a country thousands of miles away, is not a justifiable national interest for  intervention in Syria.  Have we made things better in Iraq?  Have we built a stable democracy in Afghanistan.  Since we got out of Vietnam, the country united and peace prevailed.  The humanitarian thing to do is to stay out.

This is not going to be a relative cake-walk like Libya.  Syria has powerful allies (e.g. Russia and Iran).  How will Russia and Iran respond.    Lebanon, via Hezbollah, has already been drawn into the conflict.  This could easily spiral into a major multi-national conflict.  There was lots of open ground in Libya.  Syria is much more heavily urbanized.  The Syrias have a first class Soviet-made air defense system.  Syria has huge stockpiles of chemical weapons that need to be factored in. 

Some argue that our failure to act could result in the Russians gaining control or undue influence.  They can’t control it any better than we could.  Didn’t they learn anything from their Afghani debacle?  If action must be taken, let it be the U.N. or other nations in the region.   

 The British Parliament has spoken out agianst British intervention.  There is no enthusiasm by the French or any of our European allies for intervention.  The UN has shown no interest in involvement. Have these folks finally figured it out?

In this context the problem of Presidential powers v. Congressional powers is a difficult and complex one.  The War Powers Act is now working. Let's use this Congressional veto as the start of trying to build a new Executive-Legislative working arrangement.  One that will keep Presidents with itchy trigger fingers from dragging us into problems that we cannot solve, involvement that will probably market things worse, and that involve no true central national interests and only squander American lives and treasure. The status quo is not working.  Let's use this situation as a starter for a new approach.