Cringe-Inducing Syria Episode Shines Light on Obama’s Incompetence
Here, here and here, I have noted something very obvious: the Syria melodrama that Barack Obama initiated last week, with his proposal to start another war is (1) the stupidest, most pointless, ill-conceived military proposal in the history of the United States and (2) the stated reason, the use of chemical weapons, especially on children, is a disingenuous excuse designed to cover up the fact that it’s being done for cynical political reasons; specifically, to rescue an in-over-his-head, unqualified fool who, off the Prompter, stuck his foot in his mouth (AGAIN) from the consequences of his remarks, and to give his party an issue to run on in 2014. Don’t take my work for it. Listen to this guy, Robert H. Scales, a retired Army major general, is a former commandant of the U.S. Army War College, who writes in today’s WaPo about his conversations with active and retired soldiers about this idiotic plan. (The whole thing is worth reading):
They are embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of the Obama administration’s attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic sense. None of the White House staff has any experience in war or understands it. So far, at least, this path to war violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective.
They are repelled by the hypocrisy of a media blitz that warns against the return of Hitlerism but privately acknowledges that the motive for risking American lives is our “responsibility to protect” the world’s innocents. Prospective U.S. action in Syria is not about threats to American security. The U.S. military’s civilian masters privately are proud that they are motivated by guilt over slaughters in Rwanda, Sudan and Kosovo and not by any systemic threat to our country.
They are outraged by the fact that what may happen is an act of war and a willingness to risk American lives to make up for a slip of the tongue about “red lines.” These acts would be for retribution and to restore the reputation of a president. Our serving professionals make the point that killing more Syrians won’t deter Iranian resolve to confront us. The Iranians have already gotten the message.
Can John Kerry or Barack Obama tell us how much this adventure might cost? Let me answer that. They can’t because they don’t have defined objective, so they don’t know what they are going to do. Their assurances about “no boots on the ground” make sense only in the context of an academic discussion. Once we start asking questions like “If Bashar al-Assad has a large stockpile of chemical weapons, how do we know they are secured without any boots on the ground?” those assurances are obvious ridiculous and worthless.
There’s a saying that “the enemy always has a vote,” one that no one in the Obama administration has heard, but it comes from the U.S. military.