The Changing Demographics of a Syrian Refugee

In this clip, Professor Casagranda states that Greek fire was invented by a Syrian refugee.  There is no further context to that.  Well, everyone knows what a Syrian refugee is, right?  We just had thousands upon thousands of them flee the Syrian Civil War and flood into Europe.  They are mostly Arabic Muslims.  Anyone watching this clip will mistakenly conclude the same of the refugee who invented Greek fire.  Why would you not?  Unless you actually know history, like Professor Casagranda.  A 7th century Syrian refugee is quite different from a 21st century one.  In fact, Callinicus of Heliopolis was a Greek-speaking Jewish architect who fled the Muslim conquests of that Christian nation.  Huh.  I'm sure that omission was unintentional.

What Counts More: Words or Deeds?

Just on Twitchy and saw this:

 

 

This is the problem with Never Trumpers: they have forgotten the Obama Presidency and their objections to it.  Ignore the blather and just look at the results.  Is the economy better or worse?  Has Rule of Law improved or not?  Employment numbers improving?  Better foreign policy or worse?  More federal regulations or fewer?  Better judicial nominees or worse?  One does not have to like Trump to see that - from the conservative/libertarian perspective - the country is better off with Trump than Obama.

 

However, if one pays attention to the blather and ignores the results, Trump is a catastrophe.  Obama has a mellifluous voice, a professorial demeanor, an aloofness that isn't standoffish, and a calm self-control that was just magnificent to behold.  The man has presence.  By contrast, Trump sounds like a goon from a mafia film, say 'yuge' and 'believe me' and other catch phrases ad nausea, and uses constant hyperbole for both praise and criticism.  So much hyperbole.  And demeaning insults.  Ugh.  He's a used car salesman compared to Obama's professor.  Based on these optics, the US is in a Dark Age.

 

Did the Helsinki Summit - especially the joint press conference where Trump was outwardly friendly to Putin - demonstrate that the president is a Russian puppet?  Looking only at blather, maybe.  What about actions?  Trump sent cruise missiles into Rusia's ally Syria, holding Assad to the red line that Obama ignored.  Also, Russian mercenaries in Syria were killed in American airstrikes.  Probably not something Putin wanted.  Trump has approved selling arms to Ukraine.  Oh, Putin can't want that.  US pipelines have been approved, putting more oil on the world market and thus eating into Russia's profits.  Russia needs its oil revenue.  Trump blasted Merkel for buying oil from Russia, suggesting she shouldn't be funding NATO's putative adversary.  Hmm, don't think Putin is keen on that.  Trump also approved drilling in ANWR, putting even more oil in the market.  Trump opened up fracking on federal lands.  Oil and natural gas are the cash cows of Russia and Trump is lifting all the roadblocks so that Americans will dominate that industry.

 

Let's take this words vs. deeds theme and test it.  Politifact ruled that Trump's claim of being tougher on Russia than Obama was Mostly False.  Here's the money quote from their ruling:

 

On a broader geopolitical level, there has been a significant degree of consistency between the Obama and Trump administrations in actual U.S. policy, and even a few examples where Trump has gone further than Obama did. That said, Trump’s own record of Russia- and Putin-friendly comments have sent contrary messages about U.S. policy toward Russia.

 

First sentence says that Trump has basically stuck with Obama's policies (DEEDS) and gone further in some cases (translation: tougher).  However, Politifact has ruled that his comments (WORDS) undermine his claim.  I long ago learned to ignore what politicians say (they lie) and judge them on what they do.  On that basis, Trump's claim is Mostly True.

What a Difference 4 Years Make

During the 2012 Presidential Campaign, Obama ripped into Romney's views on foreign policy.  Here's the clip.  Obama mocks Romney for identifying Russia as the number one geopolitical rival.  He also gives him grief for making a nuclear treaty with Russia.  To read the news since the 2016 election, it looks like Romney was a seer!  He then attacks Romney for wanting more troops in Iraq.  As it turned out, ISIS exploded on the scene in 2014 and there was virtually no US presence to oppose it and the Iraqi army collapsed.  Gee, Romney is an oracle!  Then he hammers Romney for dithering on Afghanistan, apparently not having a mirror on hand to examine his own record on that account. 

Asked two years later - in light of troubles in Ukraine and Syria - if Romney was right on Russia being our primary geopolitical foe, Obama dodged a direct response to the question and offered vague analysis instead.

Though I'm certainly no Romney fan, he demonstrably had the clearer view on foreign affairs in general and Russia in particular.  Even Democrats would have a hard time justifying Obama's 2012 statements in light of current events.  If Russia has had as much influence as many Democrats are now saying, those above clips will eventually be cited like Neville Chamberlain's 'peace for our time' proclamation.  According to some accounts, Obama sat on his hands while Russian operatives rigged the election for Trump.  Thus, the effort to delegitimize Trump's election must simultaneously paint Obama as hopelessly clueless and incompetent with regard to Russia.

Lying with Statistics

Living here in Texas, I was kind of surprised when I saw this story that claimed Mexico was the 2nd deadliest conflict in the world last year.  What?  Really?  I read the story and it struck me that there was no discussion of the relative sizes of the countries being discussed.  The population of Syria is around 17 million while the population of Mexico is around 120 million.  Therefore, with 7 times the population, Mexico has seen less than half as many deaths.  One out of every 340 Syrians was killed last year vs. one out of every 5,200 Mexicans.  Rounding out the list, Afghanistan was the second deadliest with 1 in 2,100 killed, followed by Iraq with 1 in 2,500, and finally Yemen with 1 in 3,600.  Of course, St. Louis saw 1 out of 1,667 citizens killed in 2015, making that city deadlier than all of these countries except Syria.  See, I can use statistics too.

 

Someone started looking at absolute number of people killed rather than the ratio of people killed to population and decided on a shocking headline.  Not to minimize the large number of deaths that surround the drug cartels in Mexico, but it isn't in the same league with these Middle Eastern war zones.

Resetting the Table

The strike on Syria coincided with President Xi Jinping visiting President Trump in Florida.  It is highly unlikely that the timing was coincidental.  Launching a military strike while the leader of one of the great powers is visiting sends a message, especially with the rising tensions over China's client state, North Korea.  If Trump is willing to attack a Russian client state, what's to stop him from doing the same with China?  Syria is the Gordian Knot of conflicts, involving Russia, Turkey, Iran, ISIS, the Kurds, Jordan, Israel, and others.  The boldness (recklessness?) of such an attack is a 180 degree shift from recent US policy.  Trump has not moved pieces on the chessboard, he has thrown the chessboard on the floor.

Trump has a long history of showmanship and running casinos.  Is this some grand bluff that no one risks calling?  Throughout the campaign, Trump gave the impression that his foreign policy would not be much different than Obama's, maybe less ambitious.  The Syrian strike came as a complete surprise.  To the good, Trump has swept away the America-as-doormat view that took hold during the Obama years.  To the bad, Trump might actually wage a war along the lines of Libya, bypassing congress and risking an even wider war because of all the players on that field.

 

If the attack is not sustained, this may have been a brilliant reset, a shock to the global order that restores America's primacy in one fell swoop.  However, there is talk of deposing Assad again which sounds like the entanglement is only just beginning.  Syria is a far more dangerous conflict than Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya.

Not Another Middle East War

It looks like we might be at war with Syria.  Will this be a limited volley of cruise missiles to slap Assad's hand and maybe dissuade from future chemical weapons attacks or is this going to be Trump's Libya campaign?  Though Assad is clearly a villain, it is hard to see a good end to entering this mess.  The time to get involved was before Russia stationed planes on Syrian airfields and ships in Syrian harbors.  As US ground troops are highly unlikely, what army is going to take the field against Assad?  When Russia planes bomb the army with which we ally, will we assist by shooting them down?  Are we going to duplicate the technique that pushed Russia out of Afghanistan by arming the rebels with stinger missiles?  Afghanistan is doing so well that we have been entangled there for 16 years and counting?  This is fraught with peril.

 

Best case, this is just a way of saying, "Knock it off!"  If Assad can expect to have an airfield and several million dollars worth of aircraft destroyed in the wake of using chemical weapons to kill a handful of civilians, it may convince him that the price is too high.  Obama drew the red line and did nothing when it was crossed.  Trump drew no lines and acted immediately.  Which is a better strategy?  Clearly, the results of Obama's strategy were bad but his alternatives may have been worse.  Sometimes bad is the best choice on the table.

 

Now for some dark thoughts: could this be Trump's way of undermining the notion that he is a puppet of Putin?  An attack on a country with which Russia is overtly aiding in a military campaign is about the last thing one would expect from a Putin puppet.  Maybe this is Trump's pushback on Russian expansion and adventurism and Assad's chemical weapon attack just provided a pretext.  If Trump will launch cruise missiles at a country where Russian forces are stationed, how eager will Russia be to keep pressing Ukraine or continue its propaganda campaign to annex part of Lithuania?  In that case, this would be extremely bold, verging on reckless.  Perhaps in the wake of his legislative agenda grinding to a halt, Trump has decided to make his bones in foreign policy.

 

Rand Paul makes a good point when he says the United States was not attacked.  Though Trump claims this is a vital national security interest, he has not yet made the case.  He needs to make that case and put it before Congress.  No more Libya-like wars.  Of course, Republicans are spineless, so I am not optimistic they will hold Trump to the War Powers Act any better than they held Obama.

The Interventionist

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has blasted the Trump Administration for not hard charging into Syria in the wake of the latest chemical weapons attacks.  According to McCain, Russia, Iran, ISIS, and Syrian Dictator Assad all need to pay a price for war crimes that rival those of Pol Pot or Nazi Germany.  He is particularly annoyed that Secretary Tillerson voiced a policy that sounds like disengagement, leaving Syria and the Syrians to fend for themselves.

 

First, Trump has exactly one appointee in the Pentagon, Secretary of State Mattis.  As far as the military is concerned, Trump has hardly even begun to take the reins.  In the wake of 9/11, it took a month before Bush acted militarily but McCain is seething that Trump isn't sending weapons to the Syrian rebels tonight.

 

Second, the window for acting in Syria has come and gone.  At this point, it is a disaster.  The competing interests are so numerous that any action will create more problems.  Do we side with the Kurds or the Turks?  The Turks have been US allies for decades and the Kurds were our best allies during the Iraq War but the two absolutely hate each other and are butting heads in Syria.  Who do we pick?  With the Russians already participating on the side of Assad, how can the Syrian rebels hope to unseat him without significant American support?  Air support will lead to an air war with Russia.  At best, this is like the Korean War where we dare not cross the Yalu River lest we expand the war.  Tackling ISIS on the Iraqi side of the border is relatively safe but will be inconclusive, just like the Korean War, and have little impact on the Assad Regime.

 

Third, what is the US national interest here?  US fracking has been so successful that Middle East oil holds far less importance in American foreign policy.  Where a sudden decrease in the oil output of the Middle East could once crash our economy, it would now serve to enrich us by making more fracking economically viable.  Humanitarian military actions (e.g. Somalia, Libya) have not gone well for us and are best avoided.

 

Whatever we do militarily, the outcome will be bad.  Better to engage the various players diplomatically and economically rather than risk military.  Russia and Iran are harmed by America's rising oil independence.  The more oil we drill, the further their economies sink.  Approving the XL Pipeline may be one of the best moves in bringing OPEC countries to heel.

 

Looking back, it may be that we dodged a bullet when McCain lost to Obama.  Yes, Obama was a catastrophe - we are enjoying his Syrian successes today - but McCain has rattled the saber at every conflict.  He would have been far more active against Russia than either Bush or Obama.  He made lots of noise when Russia pealed off part of Georgia, was feisty when Russia annexed the Crimea, and has called for more sanctions in the wake of the election hacking hoax.  Though I agree that the US should have done more, McCain sounds like he wants to restart the Cold War and then warm it up a bit.  You know, the good ole days when foreign policy was easy.

Russian Reset in Ruins

When Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, she made a big show of resetting our relationship with Russia.  The implication was that Bush had done a bad job and the Obama Administration would use 'smart diplomacy' to resolve issues.  By the end of her tenure, Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney was declaring Russia to be our primary geopolitical foe.  Obama mocked him, saying the 1980s called and wanted their foreign policy back.  And then Russia invaded Ukraine.  And annexed Crimea.  And sold anti-aircraft missiles to Iran.  And station troops and planes in Syria.  And have repeatedly offered Cold War style provocations.  Now a flotilla of Russian warships is brazenly traipsing through the English Channel.  This looks a lot like the Cold War.

 

This course was set by Hillary and Obama.  John Kerry has done little more than keep the seat warm since Hillary left.  Who hires a person whose structures collapse to takeover as the new architect?  It looks very much like America probably will.

 

The next four years are going to be very difficult.

Losing Turkey

President Erdogan is on his way to Russia for talks with Putin, presumably to improve the Turkish-Russian relationship.  As mentioned in an earlier blog, Turkey and Russia have had a long and contentious relationship.  However, Russia has succeeded in encircling Turkey in the last few years.  Russia has been a booster of Iran, assisting with its nuclear program.  Russia annexed the Crimea, giving it a bigger footprint on the Black Sea.  Of course, back in the Bush Administration, Russia managed to carve out a part of Georgia.  For the last year, Russia has placed forces in Syria, Turkey's neighbor to the south.  How has the United States responded to this constrictor snake tactic?  Empty red lines, toothless proclamations, demands that countries live up to their international obligations.  In short, meaningless rhetoric.

Erdogan has never been a believer in secular Turkey.  He is an Islamist and has sought to undermine Kemalist Turkey for decades.  The recent failed coup is looking more and more like the death knell of secular Turkey.  Again, a largely hands-off America has been a boon to that effort.  The US has been abandoning the Middle East for most of President Obama's tenure and Russia and Iran have been filling that vacuum.  Luckily, domestic fracking has done wonders for American gas prices despite the increasingly turbulent Middle East.

 

In the ongoing real game of thrones, Putin is playing chess and Obama is playing checkers.  Future historians will marvel at how badly our foreign policy was handled.

Syria Strategy in Shambles

President Obama is currently back on his gun control crusade, now considering executive action that he once said was beyond his authority.  Just like immigration reform was beyond his authority until he did it anyway.  And Congress let him get away with it.  Before the Oregon shooting, Obama had moved from the 'success' of his Iran Deal to his Climate Change Crusade.  He wants to talk about anything not related to his Middle East policy.  Here are a few things that have happened regarding Syria in just the last month or so:

Aug 23: Even proponents say Iran Nuke Deal just kicks the can 15 years down the road.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/24/world/middleeast/in-pushing-for-the-iran-nuclear-deal-obamas-rationale-shows-flaws.html?_r=0

Sept 3: Iran dismisses claims that Iran Deal will restrict their military ambitions.  Even as Obama was still trying to push the deal in Congress, Iran is diminishing its value.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/09/03/iran-thumbs-nose-at-us-even-as-obama-rallies-support-for-nuke-deal/?intcmp=hpbt1

Sept 9: Russian troops in joint operations with Syrian forces.  This is not good news for the anti-Assad rebels that we are supporting.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/10/us-mideast-crisis-syria-exclusive-idUSKCN0R91H720150910

Sept 10: Democrats defeat Republican effort to nix Iran Deal.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/iran-deal-senate-dems-block-gop-measure-to-kill-213506

Sept 11: NATO surprised by Russian move into Syria.  This speaks wonders for our intelligence agencies.

http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/09/nato-caught-surprised-russias-move-syria/120764/

Sept 12: Look, Iran has more uranium than we thought.  Somehow, I suspect Obama had this information related to him in a Presidential Daily Brief some time in advance of his lobbying Congress to pass his nuke deal.

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/iran-says-finds-unexpectedly-high-uranium-104622948.html

Sept 14: Russia deploys tanks at Syrian airfield.  The US doesn't have any tanks in Syria.  We are suddenly losing the arms race in Syria.

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-positioning-tanks-syria-airfield-u-officials-144236303.html

Sept 16: Ballistic Missiles development not part of deal.  Well, that's good news.  We've delayed nukes for 15 years - if they don't cheat (pay not attention to the story above about unexpected uranium) - but they will have fully developed delivery capacity waiting for the warheads.  Awesome.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/obama-admin-iranian-ballistic-missile-tests-not-a-nuke-deal-violation/

Sept 18: Russia deploys Tactical Fighter Jets to Syrian base.  This can't be good.  First tanks, now fighters jets.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-defense-secretary-discusses-syria-with-russian-counterpart-1442589965

Sept 22: Russia establishing bases in Syria.  And now Syria is more firmly in the Russian sphere of influence.  While the US draws out of the Middle East, Russia is gladly moving in.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/russia-expands-military-its-presence-in-syria-satellite-photos-show-1442937150

Sept 27: Russia and Iran ally with Syria's Assad, making Obama's official policy of Assad's removal all that much more unlikely.

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-iran-throw-weight-behind-assad-un-meet-210506731.html

Sept 29: Iran purchase aircraft and satellites from Russia.  Yes, Iran is also firmly in the Russian sphere of influence.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/iran-buys-21-billion-in-aircraft-satellites-from-russia/

Oct 1: Iranian troops headed to Syria to help Assad.  US Syrian policy in collapse.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/01/us-mideast-crisis-syria-iranians-idUSKCN0RV4DN20151001

Oct 1: Russia begins airstrikes in Syria, but not against ISIS.  US supported rebels targeted.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150930/eu--russia-syria-1f3833b009.html

Oct 2: Putin declares Syrian no-fly zone.  The US used to have a monopoly on Middle Eastern no-fly zones.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-02/putin-has-his-own-no-fly-zone-in-Syria

Oct 4: US proposes ramping up pressure on ISIS in Syria.  We're getting outmaneuvered!  We'd better do something soon.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/05/world/middleeast/us-aims-to-put-more-pressure-on-isis-in-syria.html?src=twr&_r=0

Oct 7: Iran refuses any further talks with US.  After a complete victory like the nuke deal, there's no point in more talks. 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/07/us-iran-us-talks-idUSKCN0S10P220151007

Oct 7: Russia supports Syrian offensive with cruise missiles.  The US used to have a monopoly on Middle Eastern cruise missile use.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/syrian-activists-russian-air-strikes-pound-rebel-zones-in-latest-blows/2015/10/07/fb3be168-5cf3-4e38-98f3-f6b75ed53871_story.html

Oct 9: Iran Nuke Deal violates federal law.  That's all well and good but it's not going to prevent President Obama from lifting sanctions.  Federal law hasn't been an impediment to much of his policy so far.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/09/exclusive-us-officials-conclude-iran-deal-violates-federal-law/

Oct 10: US abandons training Syrian resistance to combat ISIS.  Yes, time to throw in the towel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/world/middleeast/pentagon-program-islamic-state-syria.html

Obama was never serious about fighting ISIS.  He had to 'do something' because of the beheading of US citizens.  He did as little as he could.  If I know that, Russia and Iran know that too.  And they have gladly moved in to take advantage of American weakness.  As Obama shows weakness at each provocation, America's enemies get bolder.  This next year is not going to be a good one for US foreign policy and that's why the gun control crusade is a top priority again.

The End of Pax Americana

In the Ancient World, there was a period that has come to be called the Pax Romana, the Roman Peace.  After two centuries of almost continuous warfare, Augustus brought about an era of peace in the wake of his victory over Antony and Cleopatra.  This extended period of no warfare was unknown to Romans but not unwelcome.  It lasted for two hundred years but came to an end with Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator).

 

Based on this Roman example, historians have picked out other similar time and titled them for the dominant power that secured the peace.  After Napoleon's final defeat at Waterloo, Britain became the dominant power around the globe.  Its mighty navy protected the seas and thereby promoted trade and comity on the waves.  This Pax Britannica lasted until World War I.  It was not until after World War II that the United States took the reins from Britain and established the Pax Americana.  Of course, there have been wars during this period but they have not touched the American mainland - terrorist attacks excepted.

 

Barack Obama has refused to maintain the Pax Americana.  From the very start, he apologized for America's past arrogance and declared that we had no business telling other countries what they should and shouldn't do.  He abandoned allies like Poland to curry favor with opponents like Russia.  He abandoned Iraq and is somehow bemused that ISIS arose in the fertile power vacuum he left.  He was a cheerleader for the Arab Spring which has toppled our former allies - though admittedly dictators - and provided more fertile soil for jihadists; that was not a good tradeoff.  The Middle East is in ruins and expelling refugees at an alarming rate.  Iran is on the rise and aligning itself with Russia.  Russia has become a firm supporter of Assad in Syria, a dictator that Obama long ago demanded step down.  Russia, whom Romney identified as our number one geopolitical adversary in the 2012 campaign, is securing a foothold in the Middle East while we retreat from it.

 

As happened with the Pax Britannica, America is finding it more difficult to pay for the peace.  With an economy that has stagnated for the better part of a decade and a rapidly growing welfare state to support, it is easier to cut the military than transfer payments to voters.

 

At the UN today, Vladimir Putin laid the blame for Middle Eastern turmoil on the West.  And he was right!  Obama has left a power vacuum and Putin is only too happy to accept this gift.  During the Cold War, we funded the Mujahidin in Afghanistan, a country with relatively little in the way of natural resources.  Now we are handing over the whole of the Middle East, a magnificent oil producer, without resistance.

 

I rather doubt we will have a Pax Russia to follow America's abdication. 

Irreconcilable Differences

I'm going to let the president speak for himself.  Here is a quote from today:

"First of all, I didn't set a red line.  The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are [inaudble] and passed a treaty forbidding their use, even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation entitled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous things happening on the ground there need to be answered for. So, when I said in a press conference that my calculus about what's happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn't something I just kind of made up. I didn't pluck it out of thin air. There's a reason for it."

Barack Obama, September 4, 2013

He didn't draw that red line.  Somebody else made that happen.  :)  Let's check the transcript from last year:

"We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.  That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."

Barack Obama, August 20, 2012

Interesting.  No mention of the world painting that redline.  He said it changed "my calculus." not humanity's calculus.  Sounds like he did draw that line and he is trying to dodge the blame.  This is doubtless why he has gone to Congress for approval.  Regardless of how Congress votes, he wins.  If they vote no, he can blame them for America's failure to punish Assad.  If they vote yes, Congress will share the blame for the almost inevitable disaster that follows.

On a related topic, it is a fact that Saddam Hussein gassed tens of thousands of his own people and yet Barack Obama declared Iraq to be the wrong war.  He hammered Bush for that war and played up his anti-war rhetoric throughout the 2008 campaign.  Why was it wrong to attack Saddam but right to attack Bashar?  Comparing apples to apples, Saddam was vastly worse than Bashar.  Would Senator Obama vote in favor of President Obama's warmongering?

 

Not to be cynical, but this Syrian mess comes at an ideal time for the president.  Who's talking about Obamacare right now?  Remember that IRS scandal?  How about the NSA spying scandal?  Benghazi?  Talk of a war has magically brushed aside all those pesky "phony" scandals.

Syria: To Bomb or not to Bomb

Thus far, the congressional hearings indicate that the plan is to bomb just enough to punish Assad for using weapons but not enough to make him lose the civil war.  Why is that?  Well, we don't really want Al-Qaeda - which is allied with the rebels - to win.  But on the other hand, the President has been declaring for over two years that Assad must go.  So which is it?  Sad to say but Assad is probably the better option.  Do we want elements of Al-Qaeda to acquire chemical weapons in the aftermath of Assad's fall?  Secretary of State Kerry suggested that we might put boots on the ground to secure such stockpiles; I would agree that is in the national interest if Assad falls but I don't think most Americans are too keen on another Mideast adventure.

Setting aside the idea of seizing chemical weapons, what exactly is the US national interest here?  Assad allegedly gassed a thousand or so people and that must not go unpunished.  So, it was okay for him to machinegun and bomb the other 99 thousand?  We care about how they were killed, not that they were killed.

The only reason that we are going to intervene (I think Obama will probably get approval from Congress) is to make good on Obama's foot-in-mouth redline lest America lose prestige overseas.  Did the murder of our ambassador have no impact on our prestige?  What of abandoning Poland and the Czech Republic in the face of Russian complaints about missile defense?  Edward Snowden revelations?  No, none of that is hurting us overseas.  Weren't we supposed to have Smart Diplomacy now?

Rand Paul pointed out that there could be serious repercussions to an attack on Syria.  Syria has already promised to attack Israel in the event of US attacks.  Iran, which is already heavily supporting Syria, might be drawn in.  Russia has warships in port on the Syrian coast and is backing Assad.  Given Obama's track record in the Middle East (siding with Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, assassination of Libyan ambassador, abandoning Iraq, hopeless policy against pre-nuclear Iran, poor relations with Israel, etc.), I think it would be wisest to keep out.  Really, do we think he'll finally have a success in a no-win situation?

 

Now let's visit the fringe: Yossef Bodansky (http://www.globalresearch.ca/did-the-white-house-help-plan-the-syrian-chemical-attack/5347542) says that Assad is being 'framed' for the chemical attack.  In the days before the attack, the rebels had a huge influx of weapons for an upcoming campaign in the wake of America bombing of Assad.  How did they know a chemical attack was coming?  I am reminded of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor.  The Maine was sunk by an explosion while the US and Spain were having very tense relations over the Cubans.  Spain was blamed for the sinking though some suggested that it might have been Cuban rebels seeking to pull the US into what became the Spanish-American War (1898).  Bodansky also suggests that US intelligence had foreknowledge of the attack.  Hmm.

 

Like Jimmy Carter, Obama seems to have it out for dictators even though the alternative is worse.  Carter abandoned the Shah of Iran and that has not gone well for us or the people of Iran.  Obama dumped Mubarak in Egypt and that isn't going too well either.  Is Assad next on the hit list?  Yes, this is crazy talk (I hope) but may be worth consideration a year hence.

Syria is a Lose-Lose Proposal

There are no good options with Syria.  The President foolishly painted himself into a corner with his red line talk and now his credibility is on the line.  If he attacks Syria, the US will be aiding the rebels who include large chunks of al-Qaeda-allied forces.  If he doesn't attack, US foreign policy will be hamstrung; the US will have demonstrated that it is all bark and no bite.

 

Theodore Roosevelt's most famous quote - "Speak softly and carry a big stick" - is apparently unknown by this administration.  There has been much talk - very often loud and emphatic - but no stick.  How many times has the administration demanded that Iran 'live up to its international obligations' with absolutely no effect?  There is no penalty for not living up to the obligations.  Back to TR, many accused him of being a warmonger but, oddly enough, the US didn't have any wars during his tenure.  In fact, he won a Nobel Peace Prize for his part in resolving the Russo-Japanese War of 1905.  The credible threat of force kept would-be aggressors quiescent.  There is no credible threat of force.  That isn't to say the administration is unwilling to use force (witness Libya or the surge in Afghanistan) but that it is hard to divine what might trigger that use of force.  By nature, people will probe to find out what they can get away with.  Assad is probing how serious Obama is, just as Iran has been pushing to see how he responds.  The results aren't good.  Word out of the administration is that any attacks on the Assad Regime will be punitive in nature and limited in time and scope.  Kind of like an international wrist slap.  That is unserious and it tells our opponents that we are unserious.

 

I am not in favor of a strike on Syria, any more than I was in favor of a strike on Libya.  Bad foreign policy has led us to this cul-de-sac and there is no good way out.  Keep this in mind when Hillary Clinton, who steered us down this dead end road as Secretary of State, runs for President in 2016.  Our foreign policy is a shambles and she deserves a good share of the blame.