Ah, what a web this administration has woven. This is what comes from being full of total bs time after time AND from not ever allowing the use of actual US power as in today’s warfare apparently you have to play “fair”.
Let’s take a look.
Start here – and no, don’t bother with the story, as the headline and dateline say it all. “UN inspectors say gas analysis will take up to 3 weeks on August 31”.
So we are relying on our own intelligence for all of this and not on the UN, and our intelligence has questions of it’s own. And in the meantime, we KNOW that our intelligence is not to be trusted with the words it says publicly. (which is something we figured in general-what good is secret service without the secret part?- but never really transferred to congressional hearings until now)
We know that Obama drew a red line and is concerned with being mocked. We know that a “limited strike” with no intention of regime change may, or may not stop the use of chemical weapons by Assad which killed >1400, but will not end the war which has killed >100,000.
Oh, but wait, let’s back up. Was it Assad? Probably, but back in March it was the rebels.
And who should do something? Apparently, only us. Because, well, because.
Aluwaisheg went on to say that the example of the West’s intervention in Kosovo in the late 1990s should be used as a model for an operation in Syria. The idea behind the intervention, which he says is relevant today is that “state sovereignty is not absolute, but conditioned by other norms and principles.”
Kim Strassel writes with ease today on what Congress is being asked to do.
Americans do not want to think that the president is making grave decisions about military action and U.S. standing on the basis of political calculation. Yet Mr. Obama has treated Syria as a political problem from the start, viewing it almost solely as a liability to the administration’s public-opinion polling, its presidential electioneering and its rival domestic priorities. Viewing Mr. Obama’s punt to Congress as anything but political is almost impossible. And yet the president again lectures Congress to rise above the “partisan” politics that he has, with great calculation, dumped on them.
The challenge for Republicans is to do just that, to remember (no matter how painful) that this is not a vote about the president or his machinations. The only question before Republicans is this: Will they send a message to the world’s despots that America will not tolerate the use of weapons of mass destruction? If they will not send that message, they risk complicity in this president’s failed foreign policy.
My recommendation, for what little value it has, is for Congress to vote “NO,” unless the misadministration comes up with a real, solid thought-through proposal with goals and an exit plan. President Obama built this bizarre structure, he should get full credit for it. He should be told, you didn’t want us in on the take-off, don’t call us in on the crash landing. This is a tough thing for me to recommend. I have spent some 34 years in the Foreign Service, and have seen up close what happens when the President of the United States has no credibility.
He links to Legal Insurrection who would vote yes.
Congress is not asked to approve a “plan” or a “strategy” or how many missiles get fired, if at all, at what time of day and on what targets. I don’t understand — militarily or politically — why some people want to take on that burden.
Congress is asked to authorize the use of force by the President of the United States if, as, and when the President deems it necessary to address the use and transfer of chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in, to or from Syria.
If the facts are that the Assad government used chemical weapons to kill over one thousand civilians, then the President should have that authority as it is in our national interest to forestall the large-scale use and spread of weapons of mass destruction. That we cannot or should not do it in every case does not mean the President should not have authority in this case.
I am leaning no. Why? Because I don’t trust this administration in the least. Al Qaeda seems the one most likely to gain from a chemical strike on women and children and they are wise enough to make it look like Assad did it. I also don’t trust the MSM to report things accurately. More information is out there than what you read. If Assad or one of his henchman ordered the strike then why would we do some limited retaliation with long warning times? That makes no sense.
If we really had the intelligence they are talking about, then why not strike when the US saw the attack coming vs now?
The Post also reports that U.S. spy agencies recorded each step in the alleged chemical attack, from the preparations of the rockets, to the launchings to Syrian officials conducting the damage assessment.
Hindsight is 20/20 so maybe they didn’t know what they knew, which makes me even less likely to believe that they know what they know now!
It is a head scratcher. There are a lot of things to go wrong and a lot of repercussions to try to predict. But a limited strike to slap Assad on the wrist is not what I would do.