I am constrained in recent times, as I have mentioned
before, to drive-by blogging, and this has manifested itself as a major problem
when trying to keep up with the whip-saw pace of events building around Obama's
problem with Syria and its chemical weapons.
Let us examine the background and some of the wildly divergent positions
taken by Obama and his enablers
.
(11alive)
Two years ago, Obama first stated that Assad had to go,
"step aside". A year ago,
Obama stated that he has "indicated repeatedly that Assad needs to step
down" and added that it was "very clear … that a red line for us is
we start seeing a whole bunch o' chemical weapons movin' around or being
utilized", and that would "change my calculus … change my equation." Some apologists have said that the
"changed calculus" comment fell far short of the hard response that
Obama's critics have cited him as saying, but they ignore his remarks of a few
months later, in December 2012, after strong evidence that the chemicals had
been "movin' around", when he warned that "the world was
watching" and that if Assad used chemical weapons, "there will be
consequences and you will be held accountable."
The contrast with Obama's actions in Libya is striking. In his "lead from behind" attempt
at foreign strategy with the European allies more dependent on Libyan oil, he
plainly stated that the Qaddafi regime would be toppled within a month. But the Libyan dictator continued on for six
more months, finally brought to account by accident after a French Air Force fighter
strafing run on a small convoy revealed that he was one of the passengers, and
the wounded Qaddafi was killed within moments by a surging mob around his
wreck. Obama was compelled to act, he
said, by the prospect that the Libyan Army, closing in on Benghazi, could be
responsible for a thousand deaths if we didn't respond to this humanitarian
crisis. Obama and his people have
roundly criticized Bush for not anticipating the insurgent uprising in Iraq at
the end of the initial hostilities, but they and the press have given a pass to
the fact that Libya has been abandoned, with no pretext of an attempt to stand
up a viable government. Libya has become
a Mediterranean version of Somalia, and as Somalia had its Blackhawk Down
incident that exposed Clinton's disregard of his duties as Commander in Chief,
so Libya had its Benghazi consulate attack, the difference being that we have
an accounting for Somalia but only a continuing cover-up in Libya.
So with the prospect of a thousand deaths in Libya being a reason
for involvement, the obvious question remains that 100,000 deaths in Syria somehow
doesn't rise to the level of his rationale for intervention. Excuses include that the situation is more
complex (true, but sufficient?) and Syria has a more sophisticated air defense
system supplied by the Russians, including some Russians who are manning
it. Somehow, that hasn't been a deterrent
to Israel, who has bombed an almost-complete nuclear reactor and an arms convoy
headed to Lebanon.
Chemical weapons use in Syria was claimed several times
after Obama's stern warnings, most notably near Aleppo in March, but then Obama
began waffling, saying that we didn't have a "chain of custody" as to
who had used them, that we would have to await a UN study of the problem. Even those with only a passing knowledge of
the history of the UN would agree that a move like that practically consigns
the problem to a black hole.
The attacks mounted in number and severity – Aleppo again in
April, Homs and Adra in May, and the administration begin to assert that we
have assurances that Assad's forces are involved. We would now supply military aid to the "moderate"
rebels, though to date no weapons or similar support has been sent.
Then came the attack on 21 August on a rebel-held area on
the eastern edge of Damascus, which killed an estimated 1429 people. The administration stated that it was
convinced that Assad's forces launched the attack. Along with other evidence not disclosed, one
source cited a recording of a conversation between higher headquarters and the
local Syrian Army commander which included an initial refusal of the commander
on the scene to fire on civilians, followed by a threat of death if he did not. Another source indicates that the attack was
far more intense than ordered, a mistake in magnitude. New indications are that Basher al-Assad has
lost direct control of the weapons, that his hot-headed, high-ranking brother
Maher had hijacked the system and authorized the attack.
Doubts were initially raised: perhaps the attack was staged, the victims only actors, the
symptoms not matching the textbook explanations. That could be theoretically possible for some
of the footage that I saw, but the scene of one adolescent boy, gasping for
breath and flailing, was enough to convince me that his case, and likely the
others, were genuine. I also agree,
skipping a long explanation, that the attack was not a rebel provocation.
Obama was brought to account for his previous declarations: his red line was surely crossed. What serious response would we see? Obama has become a victim of his own words; his credibility is now called into
question, which he conflates as the credibility of the United States in a l'etat cest moi sort of way. Something must be done. His attempt in Sweden to claim that the
"red line" was not his but the world's was inartful at best.
John Kerry came out in full-throated battle cry that the
attack was a "moral obscenity".
Chemical weapons use was "undeniable", and President Obama, he
said, "believes that there must be accountability for those who would use
the world's most heinous weapons against the world's most vulnerable
people." One would think that he
was referring to attacks "in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan",
or to his American compatriots in Viet Nam, or to Saddam Hussein. It must be difficult for Kerry to sort it all
out, assuming that he pays much attention to that.
Obama consulted overseas allies for a joint response. Both he and David Cameron agreed that a
"serious response" was necessary, but then Parliament, in a move not
seen since 1798, removed a British option for a military response in
Syria. François Hollande was quick into
the verbal breach and agreed that France must respond, encouraging Obama, then demurred
that he would consult the Parlement
français (though not required) while soon saying that he would support an
American response if it was forthcoming (though now even that is questionable). Other than Kerry saying in Congressional
testimony that some Arab states would pony up some cash for us to defray our
expenses (essentially phoning in their support, an Arab form of condescension),
there is no overt support of an American strike. Debbie Wassermann Shultz, if she is to be
believed (and why start now?), claimed that "There are dozens of countries
who are going to stand with the United States, who will engage with us on
military action and also that back us 100 percent." Yet when pressed, she claimed that all of them were classified and refused
to name a single one.
Obama was losing his parade.
In a Rose Garden announcement, he said that, though he had the power to
order an attack on his own, he would seek the approval of Congress. General Dempsey, he said, assured him that an
attack on Syria could be postponed for a month if need be. The urgency of the issue instantly deflated,
coupled with the fact that Obama was content to wait for Congress to reconvene
the following week rather than call it back into session. Cynics (such as I am) could see him angling
for an excuse about his hip-shot red lines fading away because he expected that
the Republicans would take the bait, fighting him on the issue. Speaker Boehner and Majority Whip Cantor
quickly disabused him of that notion, stating that they supported his option of
a military strike, providing a unified front in this case of American overseas
priorities, while saying plainly that it was Obama who would have to make the
case for Congress and the American people.
The question then became truly bipartisan and was placed back into
Obama's lap, and Obama's attempt to pass the buck to the Pentagon and the
Republicans has plainly failed. Whatever
support he had in Congress has steadily deteriorated, even among his staunchest
supporters.
Obama and Kerry and other spokespersons kept defining
downward the character of our response in hiccups of 'policy as you go': there would be no "boots on the
ground" (an instant cliché); it
would be "limited in duration and scope"; involving no "regime change"; the attack would be a "pinprick"; no, we "don't do pinpricks"; the attack would be a "very limited, very targeted,
short-term effort that degrades [Assad's] capacity to deliver chemical weapons
without assuming responsibility for Syria's civil war" and (Kerry's most
bewildering comment) it would be "unbelievably small", though Kerry
also said "Nothing focuses the mind like the prospect of a hanging." In joint statements before Congress, Kerry
said that we are not going to war, but Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel referred
to the war plans for Syria.
The desperation was beginning to show: an unidentified State Department spokesman described the result
of the degrading of Syria's capability as eating Cheerios with a fork instead
of a spoon. Marie Harf, one of the
talking heads of the State Department briefings was asked that, if an
authorization from Congress would mean that America was speaking with one voice
(she agreed), then would a denial of authorization by Congress also mean that
America was denying the authorization with one voice as well? Her reply was "Not at all, because the
President obviously would still believe that we should do it." Incredibly, the voice of the American people
counts only if it is in agreement with Obama.
(nydailynews)
An unexpected glimmer of hope gleamed faintly Monday
morning.
Kerry responded to a question
in London with a theoretical speculation that the crisis could be averted if
Syria were to turn over their chemical weapons stockpile "to the
international community … all of it, without delay and allow the full and total
accounting [of it], but [Assad] isn't about to do it and it can't be
done."
But Russian Foreign Minister
Sergei Lavrov and his Syrian counterpart Walid al-Moualem, meeting in Moscow,
quickly took up the speculative offer and said that Syria would seriously
consider it.
The administration, in
turn, leapt at the chance to save themselves despite the clear appearance to
all the world that Russian President Putin had taken the initiative away from a
foundering American position.
Obama, at
this point, frankly doesn't care how it looks overseas
; he is only interested in saving his hide here at home.
He rose to the bait, even going so far as to
say that this was a deal that he cooked up with Putin during last week's G-20
summit.
But Putin's schooling and
humiliation of Obama was just getting started.
The Americans and French immediately started to begin
codifying the idea within the context of the UN, but Putin scrapped that idea,
again showing that he is the one in charge now.
Another chink emerged late yesterday when Putin insisted that an
American pledge of no military action against Assad was a further
requirement. What was it Obama said
about this being his idea along with Putin?
Yet another humiliation.
With this, we have the beginnings of the tried and true
strategy that has proven quite successful before. There will have to be talks to determine how
such an agreement is to be designed.
Some organization will have to be created to oversee the project. The actors will have to be chosen. A system for how the weapons are to be
secured, how they will be accounted for, where and how they will be removed and
transported, how they will be neutralized – all must be decided by an
international cast of characters that promises to take years, if not
decades.
Saddam Hussein took on the world and won throughout the
Clinton administration, defying every UN sanction, shooting at our aircraft,
co-opting the easily corruptible UN to siphon billions from the Oil for Food
program, laughing on state television as they portrayed the UN inspectors
stymied at the front gates of Iraqi bases as truck loads of material escaped
out the back. Qaddafi of Libya later
gave up his WMD program after the fall of Iraq scared him into doing so, but
there was still far from an accurate accounting of his weapons and capabilities
when he finally succumbed eight years later.
The Iranians are stringing along the West during interminable talks
about their nuclear weapons program, even going so far as to publically proclaim
that we are being hornswoggled, with absolute impunity other than the bother of
a computer virus that merely slowed their progress.
Besides the endless talking with no progress, there will be
the Castro option as well. The 1962 settlement
between Kennedy and Khrushchev that ended the Cuban Missile Crisis contained
the much ballyhooed withdrawal of Soviet missiles from Cuba (and the less known
withdrawal of American missiles from Turkey and Italy), but also the American
pledge to no longer attempt regime change and topple Castro and the Communist
government. Putin's insistence of ending
the American military threat to the Assad regime is much the same, an assurance
that the Russian-protected Syrian dictatorship will survive and thrive
politically.
The accounting process will be a dodge as well. The Russians want to be sure that evidence of
earlier massive Soviet assistance in the enormous Syrian stockpile of chemical
weapons is covered up, and the nagging question of the Iraqi chemical weapons
and the large convoys from Iraqi ammo dumps into Syria prior to the American
invasion in 2003 will remain a mystery, or at least hard fought over by our own
Left who must insist on their gospel that Iraq had no WMDs whatsoever despite
clear evidence to the contrary.
A question that will soon arise will concern Israel: since the raison d'être of the Syrian chemical weapons program was as a
deterrent to the Israeli nuclear program, Syria and Russia will insist on
negotiating a solution to avoid leaving Syria strategically 'defenseless'.
Russia and Putin's position in the Middle East will gain
immensely almost overnight. Iran and its
proxies will solidify their control in the region as they will be expected to
ably assist Assad in his eventual victory.
It is hard to imagine, though it is certainly possible, how
Obama could project a more vacillating and feckless position, not so much
against the chemical warfare attack in Syria but also to the concept of America
as the power that can forge a coalition of the willing to right wrongs against
humanity, or even rightfully respond to a war crime. He is a dilettante in foreign policy,
committing American power, which he has tried to "fundamentally
transform" into a more compatible neighbor to his fellow 'citizens of the
world', in a hip-shot fashion that is contradictory from one crisis to another.
From his New Beginnings apology in Cairo, to his silence
during the 2009 Iranian street demonstrations against the mullahcracy, to his
abandonment of any influence in post-war Iraq, to his self-contradiction of an
Afghan strategy (less troops than needed but then bring them home by a date
certain, with no thought to the ramifications), his blatant ball-spiking over
the bin Laden mission, his preference to avoid capture of terrorists and the
always-fluid definition of what constitutes 'torture' in favor of killing them
instead by lobbing in drone strikes, his insistence that al Qaeda was finished
despite clear evidence to the contrary (still stonewalling and covering up the
Benghazi attack), the welcoming of the 'Arab Spring' with no attempt to
influence the events in our favor, the fumbling attitude to the government
crisis in Egypt (with the millions of demonstrators against Obama and his
ambassador almost as much as they are against Morsi and his attempt to
overthrow their constitution), dragged into the 'lead from behind' operation in
Libya (leaving Libya as an al Qaeda-rich environment), and now, after two years
of empty threats and hand-wringing, he gave us his speech last night that appealed
to our better angels (mentioning 'children' seven times) but failed to give any
clue about what it is we are supposed to accomplish with a strike on Syria.
My background and experience drives me to seriously include
military options in regards to stark geopolitical problems involving national
security, but I expect to see a clear objective, a means to accomplish it, and a
plan to follow through to that end with full support from the Congress, the
people, and the military itself when lives are committed. The President has the power as Commander in
Chief to commit our military in short-term operations that affect that national
security, subject to approval of Congress – mere authorization without a formal
declaration of war is sufficient.
Obama has failed to establish any of that. Instead, he is emblematic of the warning of St
Paul: "For if the trumpet give
an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?" (1 Corinthians
14:8)
It's tempting to agree with people like Dinesh D'Souza who say Obozo is purposely trying to downgrade the American brand. Otherwise you'd be forced to conclude that he is an inept moron. I do think, however, that we could all use a breather after so many losing wars. Israel can take care of itself; always has. And we can come back, whatever mess Obongo makes, however horrendous. We've had worse presidents, though you'd have to to go back to the 19th century to find them. Millard Fillmore, anyone?
ReplyDeletePresidents like Fillmore are remarkable because they didn't accomplish much, but at the time there wasn't all that much to accomplish.
ReplyDeleteObama isn't just feckless, he's actually damaging America. Did anyone not believe him when he declared that it was time to "fundamentally transform America"?
They thought he was the usual liberal talking about the usual liberal programs. The words only seem ominous now after the damage, particularly on the economy. He's certainly despised by all but his media lapdogs. I just hope he's not (I dare not use the word now that I know the feds are snooping) because I'd hate to have him be a martyr on top of everything else. This too shall pass. I hope.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete