So we’re not putting out troops into Syria, Obama said last night. But we might begin a long and grueling effort to find, secure and destroy Syria’s chemical weapons. During a civil war. Where both sides are the bad guys.
So I ask you, are we going to put the weapons inspectors through SEAL Team 6 boot camp and arm them to the teeth so they can defend themselves? No.
Large numbers of troops would be required to ensure protection of the inspectors, according to the New York Times. Who is going to do this, the Republic of Chad? Paraguay? No, this is our ballgame. We insisted on confronting Assad over his weapons. We are going to make up at least part of any force that gets introduced. And there will be casualties, because guess who’s in town? Al Qaeda, which is part of the rebel force.
I’m sorry, I’m going too far, because I’m assuming that this whole jackass enterprise is serious. Of course, it’s not. It’s not feasible – it would take years, and Syria’s not going to turn over everything anyway. It’s a stalling tactic, legitimized by the idiocy of Secretary of State John Kerry, who suggested it off the top of his head.
The point is, though, that Obama is at least paying lip service to an idea that, if it ever could work, would probably force U.S. soldiers to get themselves stuck in what has become the world’s most fragrant pile of compost. And that’s something he said he wouldn’t do.
32 thoughts on “Obama Advocating Boots on the Ground in Syria”
I repeat. Governor Palin is right. Until we have a President that understands the Middle East well enough to recognize who the bad guys really are, let Allah sort them out.
Yes, you are right, the chemical weapon inspection-turnover is a stalling tactic. Obama, that hopeless, vain, inept amateur, has his PR reasons and team Putin-Assad have their reasons. But I don´t want the Islamists to take over yet another country in our backyard so I hope the stalling strengthens those who fight them. I wish there was a real man of Nixon-Reagan calibre in the White House.
Please God, have mercy on our service men and service women. Have mercy…
And no disrespect intended, Keith, but I do not think Kerry “suggested it off the top of his head.”
I thought Obama said in an interview that he brought this up at the G20 a year ago.
And I thought Obama claimed he had brought it up with Putin in their private meeting a few weeks ago in St. Petersburg.
One way or another BO will get some US Military members on the ground in Syria. Either as observers, peacekeepers (doubtful) or protection forces. Am sure we already have black ops operators there (a given).
Keith, your comments didn’t go far enough, but I agree with you, BO is not done with this mess now or anytime in the future.
Meanwhile the laser focus on jobs and other US issues are on the side bar. Unless he needs to drop a couple more EO’s on us for stupid things. Is he ready for the next budget round??
The administration’s post-menopausal foreign policy is highlighted by fits of hot flashes verging on dementia – they can’t remember what they said or where they’re going.
Kerry said, “that any military action undertaken in Syria would be “unbelievably small.”
Hagel told lawmakers that a planned military strike on Syria over its chemical weapons use would not be a “pin prick”.
So a deplorable act that violates all decency and international treaties will be met with a slap on the wrist? Yeah that will teach Assad- what a joke this team has become!
“Hagel told lawmakers that a planned military strike on Syria over its chemical weapons use would not be a “pin prick”.”
Yeah, if anyone knows about pricks, it’s Hagel.
If you haven’t seen/heard it yet, do go back to Koffler’s One America interview. It’s just terrific, one of the best I ever came across.
The initial goal of bombing Syria generated about 50 plans. How many will this goal generate?
And that’s something he said he wouldn’t do.
If Obama said he wouldn’t do it, then you can count on him to do it.
It’s way to easy to mistake the unprecedented events of the last month as anything other than what it really is; the exposure of MrObama, and those around him, as naive and dangerous on the world stage
. His supporters turned away in shock and embarassment as he was revealed to be weak and easily manipulated by our enemies, and his opposition was disgusted and apalled with the ease he let the Russians bail him out of a mess of his own making.
Never before in modern history has another country ever dared to put a hold on America’s military in return for a promise to deliver what the POTUS claims to be important. There won’t be any transfer of WMDs, no boots on the ground from any outside interest, because MrObama will be prevented from accepting the Russian’s offer by
those who put our national interests over MrO’s personal wants.
Meanwhile, the new kid on the block, Vladimir Putin, is renewing his offer to supply Iran with S-300’s and another nuclear reactor at the same time he is asking the West to soften sanctions against Iran now that Rowhani, a cleric, has been elected. The game is afoot!
http://www.france24.com/en/20130911-russia-renew-offer-supply-300s-iran
The quisling is really itching to send in the cruise missiles to satisfy his defense industry political donors and aid his comrades in the Muslim Brotherhood. If he can’t do that, he will degrade our military by sending them in to defend the very same cowardly Islamists who are shooting them in the back in Afghanistan. Yeah, I said it and I meant it!
The defense industry has no love of this guy.
Whats love got to do with it? It’s all about the money…
It’s kind of a tired idea that the defense industry donated to get more wars to sell more arms. It may sound “logical,” but it’s not how it works.
I’m sure there is nothing more than altruistic patriotism driving the defense industry.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/09/06/senators-who-voted-for-syria-strike-got-more-defense-contractor-dough/
So these senators were paid off in advance to start wars?
And thank you, Susan. Good for you. The US has been backed into a lose-lose situation all across the Middle East. I don’t know how far back the roots go, but I’ll say that in recent years it goes back to the Obama/Clinton Arab Spring. They’ve set a pattern of upending the established governments in the name of democracy–whatever that means in the Middle East!–and backing insurgents with terrorist ties. This is the basic flaw of Obama’s policy and he is reaping now what he has sowed.
Thank you, Julie. I believe the Bush Democracy Project gave root to our involvement in the Middle East, but agree the Arab Spring is what lit the match of political unrest and the rise of radical Islam.
I’d add Jimmah Carter and Iran with the help of France, who hosted Khomeini. What the hell, as long as I am going back in time … let’s go back to 1964 when the Shi’ite started to hit the fan in Iran.
Straight on correct sir. As with most of Obummer’s plans & proclamations, little thought or hard work, has been put into the details and ramifications of the plans and statements. It was a bad idea to get involved with the rebels, worse to launch a few cruise missles, and even dumber to think that there would be an organized inventory of and surrender of chemical weapons from a brutal dictator.
The mouthy instant gratification crew has us in another debacle!
The alternative to letting this play out, letting Russia protect its base and keeping Assad in power (which our idea would do, too), is to break a lot of stuff offering openings to all sorts of people who do not share our values of say, not eating human hearts. If seeing Iraq get “the treatment” did not convince people we were an unpredictable enemy, what would. Also–we are the only country who used a nuclear device on anyone–which is still remembered.Can we trust Russia? Of course not–but we can trust their self-interest. Diplomacy is all about deciding whose self-interest is what.
Assad said in the Charlie Rose interview: “We’re not like the American administration. We’re not social media administration or government. We are the government that deals with reality”.
Putin and Assad are far more clever and experienced that Obama will ever be. I don’t understand Obama’s coziness with Putin, especially since they’ve given asylum to Snowden.
I missed this story, but it links with the Anna Chapman chapter.
blog.heritage.org/2012/10/05/russian-technology
And Assad cannot trust Putin, either–remember that.
Pretty much this was a face saving effort by Obama. It is not a decision. The proposed solution is unrealistic so the problem remains.
When this happens domestically he dodges-prevaricates – bends the laws – and brings out his thugs and spin team. I assume we will see some version of this in foreign policy. Benghazi comes to mind so I assume Susan Rice will be Kerry’s sidekick and the MSM will provide support and cover.
Good question–how do Rice and Kerry get along. He got HER job…
Pingback: Must Know Headlines — ExposeTheMedia.com
Comments are closed.