Posted on 09/03/2013 4:25:38 AM PDT by IbJensen
In geopolitics as in medicine the first rule is do no harm. I am at a loss to see where any conceivable military action stands to either deter Assad from using chemical weapons in the future or reduces the risk to innocent civilians in Syria. Doing something for the sake of doing something only occasionally yields success. And, as far as I’ve read, the limit of our strategy in Syria is to do something.
Philosophically, I believe in the use of military power and I believe military force can be transformational, ask Japan and Germany. I also believe that the ill considered use of military force makes us look weak and stupid (any number of missile strikes by Bill Clinton, our involvement in Somalia, etc.). Right now I’m much more in sympathy with my colleague Daniel Horowitz than I am with my colleagues advocating a military response. In fact, I strongly oppose military intervention in Syria.
There is no genocide in Syria. The only ethnic cleansing is being done by the people we would be aiding. The chemical non proliferation regime is not in jeopardy because Syria already has chemical weapons and doesn’t seem to be providing them to anyone else. We are not trying for regime change. And, of course the Syrian rebels are mostly al Qaeda.
In short, this would be a military strike with no objective other than killing some luckless Syrian conscripts… and innocent bystanders.
I’m also a realist. Our Congressional caucus is running like scalded dogs from the idea of standing up to Obama. Really, why should they show more courage on Syria than they have on any other confrontation with Obama? When a vote finally takes place I fully expect them to give Obama carte blanche to do what he wishes.
Some will vote because the are afraid of being called out the next time Assad decides to kill people. More will follow the blandishments of the GOP “smart set” and vote out of some misguided sense of protecting the credibility of Barack Obama.
One such example appears is that of James Ceaser of the University of Virginia whom Bill Kristol tells us is a leading conservative thinker. (I don’t move in those circles so I just have to take his word for that.)
They shouldn’t.
Republicans should support some version of the authorization of force resolution. They should do so even if they think that the President’s policy will prove ineffective, do no good, waste money, or entail unforeseen risks; they should do so even if they think he has gotten the nation into this situation by blunders, fecklessness, arrogance, or naiveté; and they should so even if, and especially, if they have no confidence in his judgment. The simple fact is that the nation and our allies will be at further risk if the world sees a presidency that is weakened and that has no credibility to act. Partisans may be tempted to see such a result as condign punishment for the President’s misjudgments; they may feel that he deserves to pay the price for his hypocrisy and cheap and demagogic attacks on his predecessor. But at the end of the day, Republicans need to rise above such temptations; the stakes are too high.. The weaker the president’s credibility on the world scene, the more the need to swallow and do what will not weaken it further. President Obama is the only president we have. That remains the overriding fact. And there is the important matter of the future–a future that may one day have a Republican in the presidency. The precedent of setting too low a threshold for blocking presidential initiative in foreign affairs is unwise. Of course Congress has the right, even the obligation, to stop action that member of the legislature believe would be disastrous. But short of that, it is wiser to maintain a good deal of discretion in the presidency. In the case at hand, all of the hyperbole about war aside, the real objection is that the President’s policy will prove to be ineffective or humiliating, not disastrous. That is not sufficient reason to weaken the discretion of the president or open the door next time to more gratuitous partisanship by the Democrats.
Were the basis of Dr. Ceaser’s essay factual one would be inclined to agree with him. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
In our system of government the authority of a president may pass by virtue of succession but his influence and credibility do not. One needs only look at the utterly benighted reign of Jimmy Carter to see how presidential credibility can be frittered away and regained. Any new president is going to be challenged by domestic and foreign political opposition and he can’t borrow his predecessor’s accomplishments. He must stand alone. While Obama is, unfortunately, the only president we have now he is not the only president we will ever have.
Dr. Ceaser’s concern about Democrats acting in a similar manner is rather bizarre as it was the late unlamented Democrat John Murtha who advocated depriving the US military of resources in Iraq, thereby deliberately creating more casualties – he called it “a slow bleed” – and increasing pressure on President Bush to end our war there. This was not in response to any Republican challenge to Clinton, it is simply their nature.
The reason we are in this mess is because Barack Obama is temperamentally ill suited for the presidency. Assad used chemical weapons… and Russia and Iran are backing Assad… because they have taken the measure of Obama and they have, correctly, determined that his is a weak and petty little man who is only capable of weak and petty responses. His military strike at Syria is precisely such an action.
Instead of taking Creaser’s advice and acting like a doting parent who caves into a tantrum-throwing toddler in the supermarket (we mustn’t hard the precious little thing’s self esteem), Congress owes it to the nation and to the office of the president to put Obama in a time out.
Rather than taking a page out of Obama’s playbook and voting “present”, Congress should keep Obama from doing still more damage to US prestige and security abroad, even if they won’t act to do so on the domestic front. They should vote no and let him own the results, good or bad.
How can the Republicrats make it their primary mission to create even a very slim cushion of credibility. These weasels are trying to salvage a modicum of The Rodeo Clown's utterly failed Presidency. Why? True Conservatives want to know.
Americans who care need to get busy and form a viable Conservative Party to retire all these lifers.
What is the situation in syria?
One group of evil moslems is killing another group of evil moslems. Of course it’s not all one-sided either. The second group of evil moslems is also killing a bunch of the first group of evil moslems.
All we need to do is protect (by letting them escape) the Christians there (Who, if memory serves me correctly, are at least tolerated if not openly protected by the first group of evil moslems), pop the popcorn, and sit back and watch the show.
No matter who wins they will hate us (they are evil moslems after all) so all that matters is that they kill a bunch of each otehr before it all ends. The longer the killing goes on teh better it is for us.
As soon as the torches are lit and the ‘marches’ begin, the first place the Muslims torch are the Coptic Christian Churches. They like to roast the worshippers and shoot or beat to death any who escape the inferno.
I say, to hell with ALL Muslims, including the snakes who live in America.
I’m ambivalent. On the one hand, I don’t give a shiite about Syria. On the other hand, I like the idea of dropping high explosives on Muslims. Nothing but good things can come from that. hehehe
“Doing something for the sake of doing something “
In this case it would be doing something strictly because Obama swung the “big stick” like a sorcerer’s apprentice swinging a magic wand.
And he will do it again.
This will go on for forty months, if we can last that long.
Forty months.
If you can’t man the barricades, at least phone your congressman.
I cannot remember another time in history when we the USA were so pressured by one man and his supporters to commit an act of international war for the sole reason (which no one in Congress will openly admit) of covering for the empty threat bluster of an incompetent president...or his speechwriter
Of course this attack makes no sense militarily or diplomatically
THIS IS NOT ABOUT SYRIA OR WMD or INTERNATIONAL PEACE JUSTICE AND ORDER
It is ALL about covering OBAMA!!!!!!!
Of all the things we the American people for past 5 years been demanded to tolerate and accept regarding this man - giving him our military to commit an act of international war crosses America’s “red line”
anyone else?
An anti-war administration taking us to war scares the hell out of me. They wouldn’t even save our guys in Benghazi.
If a government goes to war against the wishes of 90% of the people, how is that not a totalitarian state?
Let those who vote for this miserable excuse for a human being’s war lead the incursion. Also, let them explain to the parents of the dead Americans why it is they felt the urge to prop up the weasel’s evil regime!
Obama is DANGEROUS!!!!
VOTE NO REPUBLICANS!!
What do you think of my post #10? I think it’s VERY LIKELY it was done for this purpose.
By rejecting the concept that there are good or moderate Muslims, your thoughts wander off into false reality.
The majority of the rebels are moderates and basically good people who have had enough of the Assad governance. There are other but decidedly minor factions involved. They include both AQ and MB factions.
The focus is on Syria and that is wrong. The focus should be on Iran. When Syria is no longer an Iranian surrogate, Hezbollah and Hamas will be seriously weakened.
The death of the present Syria will allow the development of some stability in the region. The death of the present Syria will allow the moderate Gulf states to assert some economic and political stabilizing influence.
For those reasons, it is in our interest to assist with the removal of Assad. I prefer tracking and killing him, but that probably will not happen. We are already in the process of providing some arms, small arms, via the American trained Qatari and probably Saudi special forces assisting the rebels. That assistance needs to be augmented and upgraded by the use of air forces to destroy military targets.
I would think there should be a coalition of power including American, Turk, Saudi and Qatari efforts. That is what I think will eventually come to pass.
Then there is Israel. Their role will be providing intelligence
I think Obama (or maybe one of his 20-something Axelrod trained speech writers) issued a “bluff” trying to look tough before the election
Someone on the global stage called him on it
Now that obama has been “dissed” and shown internationally to be an empty suit, the thin-skinned unstable narcissist is WW3 dangerous, or at least the people deseparate to keep him in power (and our ridiculously obliging impotent US congress) are WW3 dangerous
LOL!!!!!!!!!
“The dummy in the White Hut has no credibility whatsoever - on the economy and jobs creation, foreign policy, or, for that matter, anything helpful to this nation....”
That pretty much sums it up. Odumbo needs to be out of here and the sooner the better. I am amazed that he is still here.
Did the Usurper not say that the purpose of a strike was to NOT remove Assad from power?
This will take our minds off obamacare while our currency collapses.
Doesn’t matter anyway. Not once since the 40s has our intervention actually resulted in a free nation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.