He could END the war in Afghanistan virtually by tomorrow with just the command but he’s tied to a timetable again and he will follow it. That would probably be easier than arguing with the hawks like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who never see a war they don’t want to take over or perhaps a situation inviting one, and would make leaving hopeless Afghanistan HARD. Libya was the perfect example.
Without divulging any information regarding how he would END a strike/war vis-à-vis Syria, provided he had decided how and understanding he had already speechified that ENDING it would be HARD, he almost very EASILY started a war with Syria on or about 29 August, precipitating a huge outcry in this country. He had done the usual – called for support from other nations – but the only high-profile world leader responding affirmatively, Brit Prime Minister Cameron, threw the question to Parliament, which voted No.
So…the hard sell was in order and State Secretary Kerry delivered a windy speech about how the president was going to EASILY START the war unilaterally because it was right, never mind that the rest of the world leaders were not interested but in fact probably feared yet another “bullying” from Uncle Sugar. Think Libya, where Obama EASILY STARTED a war (days, not weeks, he said, and didn’t even consult Congress) because it was “right,” with that benighted nation now a chaotic shambles two years later after suffering through seven months of “days, not weeks” of U.S./NATO strikes in 2011.
So…the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has predictably reported out a bill to authorize something but apparently not until it had a McCain amendment providing the president with authorization to do about anything he likes, perhaps even “boots on the ground.” No one seems to know what, if anything, the president intends to do—everything from stealth bomber strikes from Nebraska to tomahawk missiles fired from U.S. ships in the Mediterranean, thus inviting Syrian SCUD missiles upon themselves.
The tragedy is that the issue—with human lives at stake—may become partisan. The president has already set the stage by announcing in his Rose Garden speech on 31 August that legislators should not allow “partisan differences or the politics of the moment” to define their actions.
That’s code for saying a legislator’s conscience must go on vacation for the sake of loyalty to the president, notwithstanding his fateful and wrong-headed introduction in August 2012 of a “red line” although he attempted to weasel out of that silliness in Sweden by claiming that both the world and Congress dreamed-up the term, not him, all solid documentation to the contrary notwithstanding. So…let the arm-twisting and trade-offs begin! It’s only Syrian lives, after all.
Even the mainstream media, Obama’s propaganda arms, seem to be noting that the vast majority of U.S. citizens are against any action against Syria. The other countries of alleged support (34 by Kerry’s count; 9 by UN Ambassador Power’s count as of 06 September) seem ready with words but with nothing else, either manpower or materiel, although Kerry mentioned that the Arab supporters offered to finance the U.S. as mercenaries.
Kerry attempted to stop funding of the Iraq War even though Saddam had gassed his own Kurds and Shiites. Now, though no one in the administration actually knows who did the Syrian number, Kerry says this country has to wage war against Syria. Why? Sunnis and Shiites and Wahabis and Alewites—all Muslims—are going to KILL each other one way or another no matter what this nation does. It’s in their blood to shed each other’s blood…that of infidels (us), too.
In scanning Obama’s Cairo speech, I counted four references to the Holy Koran (Obama’s term), the document in which that KILLING philosophy originates, evangelization on the point of the sword. Obama said in Cairo: “It’s easier to blame others than to look inward.” How true!
And so it goes.
Jim Clark
No comments:
Post a Comment