Once again Charles Krauthammer hits the nail on the head. He says that Obama's actions make it very clear that he wants no part of Syria. Krauthammer cites Obama's lack of effort to do anything about Assad until the red line comment forced him to. Then, Sir Charles says, Obama isn't sure what to do next.
Sen. Bob Corker: “What is it you’re seeking?”Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:“I can’t answer that, what we’re seeking.”
– Senate hearing on the use of force in Syria, Sept. 3.
We have a problem. The president proposes attacking Syria, and his top military officer cannot tell you the objective. Does the commander in chief know his own objective? Why, yes. “A shot across the bow,” explained Barack Obama.
Now, a shot across the bow is a warning. Its purpose is to say: Cease and desist, or the next shot will sink you. But Obama has already told the world – and Bashar al-Assad in particular – that there will be no next shot. He has insisted time and again that the operation will be finite and highly limited. Take the shot, kill some fish, go home.
What then is the purpose?
Dempsey hasn’t a clue, but Secretary of State John Kerry says it will uphold and proclaim a norm and thus deter future use of chemical weapons. With a few Tomahawk missiles? Hitting sites that, thanks to the administration having leaked the target list, have already been scrubbed of important military assets? [Krauthammer Opinion Enquirer]
While I have personally been advocating for more than a year that we take some action to assist the innocent people in Syria being slaughtered by their own government, I now tend to agree that the greatest danger of taking action is that the commander who would be in charge is totally incompetent. It would be like trusting a gun to a toddler.
Taking no action has the potential for bad consequences, not the least of which is the real possibility that we will be tested again. But giving the keys to the war machine to Obama is far more reckless.
Comments