You Can't Have It All Ways!

Unlike this country where the President wants things his way or no way Turkey's Erdogan has played it differently. He really wants to be the new Caliph with Turkey as the center of the Caliphate. Like us, he prefers to let others do his fighting while playing both sides.

Where we once thought of him as a suspect ally he has proven to be a turncoat by disallowing coalition forces, such as they are, from using his air bases and turning a blind eye toward those crossing his borders to join IS.

I suspect he wants to let IS fight his war than he'll take care of IS in lieu of joining forces with them. Good luck.

He's at war in a lesser sense with the Kurds because they want their own country and in my opinion should have it.  On his eastern border, however, their territory is in Syria so he lets his tanks sit on his side of the border while the Kurds fight desperately against IS for the survival of Kobani.

Further west Kurdish territory is partially in Turkey, partially in Iraq and partially in

Iran so he is taking advantage of the chaos to bomb those Kurds while they too are fighting IS. The poor Kurds are surrounded by hostiles, yet they remain democratic and pro western.  Unfortunately they're finding that allegiance has gained them nothing.

No arms as promised.  No support from the Turks and sporadic air support from the coalition.

So now what?  The Kurds are mad.  Really mad and beginning to rebel against the Turks. That puts them in an even more tenuous position because I'll bet it will effect our promise to provide them with more appropriate arms.  Will Turkey crumble?  Probably not but they'll be forced into some kind of armed conflict to quell the angry Turks leaving al Assad in Syria even freer reign than he already has.

Now back to IS.  While the media is focusing on Kobani IS is inching ever closer to Baghdad. We've been assured that Baghdad won't fall.  The Iraqi forces won't allow it yet two outlying bases and the accompanying arms have fallen to IS in the past few days.  Suicide bombings within the city limits are on the increase.

Will Baghdad fall?  Have we kept Ebola out of the U.S.? If it does Erdogan can forget his ambitions, IS will reign for at least a time then we'll turn our attention to a nuclear Iran.

This is why when one goes to war the goal should be to win.  Unequivocally. You can't have it all ways.

 

I Owe Turkey An Apology

Not so long ago I wondered what kind of trade off the Turks made with IS to get their diplomats back.  Whatever it was it worked. The diplomats were freed.

Now, they're doing the work we should be doing. Plus they're going to allow foreign units to utilize their bases.  This is huge.  They're going to help the Kurds.  Where is every one else who has promised?  They're going into Syria but they won't stop with IS, they'll go after Assad.

It's too late for what ifs, but if we had punished Syria for crossing the 'red line' and armed the Free Syrian Army back when it first became an issue, a lot of what's happening now could well have been avoided.  IS would not have been able to get a foothold.

If we hadn't insisted on passing arms through the still tenuous Iraqi government, the Kurds wouldn't have to be hanging on by their nails. If we'd quit exempting ourselves from putting boots on the ground maybe others would be willing to follow suit.

What's notable to me is the Turks got their people out before taking action.  Maybe we should have tried harder to get ours out.  The failed rescue only emboldened the enemy.  One more hapless action by the no-longer-so-great-Satan.

As of right now we're being given credit for the coalition even if they're stumbling all over one another.  If Turkey takes the lead, and they are militarily capable of doing so, it will be interesting to see if the middle east participants begin to follow their lead rather than ours.

As long as IS is eliminated, I don't care who gets the credit. If Turkey leads the way we may also get Assad. That would help ease the over all situation.

The fight might turn strictly regional.  I wonder if Turkey would join forces with Israel to deny Iran their centrifuges.  It would be in both their national interests. And ours.  Perhaps we could reshuffle our interests out of the region to more friendly and less war like nations.

At some point after all that if they want to continue bickering among themselves as to who has the correct interpretation of Islam, let them go at it. Never mind the earth will be scorched beyond repair. That would be their problem.  They will have done it to themselves.

The biggest irritation to me would be watching the administration swaggering to the mic with a self congratulatory smirk claiming victory over impossible odds.  After all, the legacy must be protected no matter the cost.

Busy Skies Over Iraq

Not to take away anything positive that's being done in the fight against IS, I must say the grand coalition has it's weaknesses.  While growing in numbers daily, they all seem to be doing the same thing.  Bombing in Iraq.  Not Syria.

There are of course reasons for this.  Syria hasn't asked for help.  Iraq has. Even though the news reports tell us the border between Iraq and Syria has been obliterated by the IS, for all practical purposes it does still exist and Syria is a sovereign nation.  To bomb in Syria requires a UN mandate which will not be forthcoming because you can be sure Russia will veto any such effort.

Why are we there?  Because of the alleged imminent plot by the Khorasan to sneak non metallic bombs on airplanes.  It's a stretch but it will do.  Of course they threatened France in the same way yet they aren't using it as an excuse to go into Syria.

That leaves us with crowded skies over Iraq, only ourselves over Syria where the IS headquarters are located, and still no boots on the ground.

To say the least, this is another ill thought out exercise which is likely to end in futility.  No one wants to send in boots if we're not willing to do so or won't admit that we actually have.  So here's another war being run, if you can call it that, by vauge goals, obfuscation and no certainty of how to get out of it when things go awry.

The salute isn't the only thing this President gets wrong.

The Death Of The Middle East

If you've been watching the news you know the situation in the Middle East is dire.  The new reports on the systematic torture and death of thousands of Syrians make my blood curdle.  Even when the photographs are edited to make them less graphic.

I've long ago quit worrying about our moral responsibility to put an end to the bloodshed.  The President opted out when the method was poison gas and the victims were children. Instead he made a deal with the devil to escape any moral responsibility.  Any responsibility at all.

It goes beyond that, however.  It didn't take long for the rebels whom we could have supported to be infiltrated by those wanting to make any new regime in their own image.  So now it's a three way war.
Some how denying access to medical aid and the most basic of foodstuffs isn't as bad as chemical weapons.  No matter that the people have been reduced to eating cats and rats if they are able to find and catch them being near death themselves.

This is just Syria.  Think about what they're doing to themselves.  They're killing themselves.  Not only children, but those who are of an age to bear children. Given enough time, there will be no one left.

Now let's go back to Iraq where we withdrew all our troops.  They are engaged, once more, in a bloody
civil war where the loser is having the most radical version of Islamic law reimposed. In Afghanistan the same is about to happen.  Do you for a believe Obama will choose the 10,000 troop option over zero troops?  The radical fringe is betting he won't and are just waiting.  Afghanistan cannot defend itself against them.

Iran has suckered us into believing they're going to play nice and give up their nuclear ambitions.  While we fall prey to that scheme they continue to threaten Iraq if they don't keep supply lines open to Syria so they can continue supplying troops and weaponry to Assad.

And now Pakistan is back in the news.  For quite some time Islamists have been killing aid workers trying to inoculate the children against polio.  It is running rampant.

Good news came that there seems to be some progress in efforts to release the doctor who helped us nail bin Laden.  The bad news is that his ploy was one of these inoculation exercises but that is was a sham set up by the CIA.  The end result is that every innocent aid worker trying to save the children are predetermined to be spies for the CIA.  The result?  Parents are afraid so they stay away from access points.

Again, a generation plus of the young will suffer death from disease while their parents die in the most unimaginable battles of just trying to save life and limb.

Maybe this is our President's policy.  Wait long enough, make the token gestures necessary to appease those few who still give us a thought, and the problem will resolve itself.  If that isn't it, then I'd suggest the President is paralyzed with fear.  That indicates to me he has no moral compass.  Rather like thinking smoking pot is no more dangerous than drinking alcohol.  That's comforting considering how dangerous drinking can be and that pot is still illegal at the Federal level.

Turn a deaf ear and a blind eye.  Like the tree falling in the forest making no sound if no one is present to hear it, perhaps war has no consequences unless someone is present to witness it.

Obama Is No Jean-Luc Picard

Remember when on Star Trek Jean-Luc Picard would say, "Make it so" and the very competent 'Number One' would do just that?  I find myself wondering why our President couldn't do more to align himself with Picard. Well, for one thing he doesn't have competent 'Number Ones' and he doesn't hold anyone, including himself, responsible.  He just blames others.

As such, he gives the order and no one makes it so.  Especially with Obamacare as more and more faults are being found.  The lesson, of course, is read the legislation before passing it.

It goes further, however, and that takes us back to foreign policy.  Nothing in ours is concrete. If we even have something that is called policy.  Take the promise of having our troops out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014 being negotiated into a broken promise.

We have the National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, at odds with Secretary of State John Kerry as to whether we back Morsi and his Muslim Brotherhood or the Military who is on track to having elections and a new constitution rather than an entrenched Islamic regime.  Side with Kerry on this one.  One wonders where the President is.  Probably with Rice.  The wrong side as usual.

Then there is Syria. By partnering with Assad and Russia over the supposed destruction of WMDs, if anyone will take them, we have left the Syrian people exposed to systematic slaughter.  The cause, of course, is Assad who is practically guaranteed to stay in power and continues to be a strong ally of Iran, an even bigger nemesis. Plus, if they need WMDs again, North Korea stands ready to help them out from their ample supply.

Stay tuned to Syria.  The al Qaeda rebels have brought in their own mercenary to run the show, a well known Chechan terrorist who was looking for a new gig.  We fear him.  The Russians fear him.  Assad fears him.  And the time when we could have intervened to help the 'good' rebels has long since passed.  Nothing good can come of this.  Now everybody's lives will be at stake! What lengths will Assad go to in order to remain in power?

Back to Iran.  Some have been suggesting that sanctions should not be tightened while negotiations are pending. Every minute of every day the Iranians continue their march toward weapons grade enrichment.  There is nothing in their past history with us nor the rest of the world that suggests they will stop that march or dismantle or destroy anything already at hand.

No one trusts them.  Why are we so willing? I don't believe one phone call between historically adversarial leaders should carry that much weight.  What can I say other than Vive la France!

Come to think of it Jean-Luc Picard was French!

Ground Kerry Before More Harm Is Done

The debacle that is Obamacare is bringing a point home that has long been needed.  This administration is less than truthful on top of being inept.

The reasons are many for both.  One, they're trying to push an agenda by the American people knowing if it were transparent the people would rebel. To wit Obamacare.

To do so they've allowed people with questionable expertise in any aspect of health care craft the bill.  If they've done it on purpose to move the country toward single payer system they should all be thrown out of office.  It's not for them to decide; it's for us to decide.  If they've done it because they're inept the same holds true.

So, before things get any worse, it's time to ground John Kerry.  We're seeing now what the world already knows on an international scale.  This administration is weak and inept. It's foreign policy staggers like a drunken sailor.

Now, however, they are so in need of a victory they are willing to sacrifice a tenuous calm, with several exceptions at that, in an entire region of the world on the false pretense the Iranians would keep their word on anything. The rest of the world and previous administrations can't all be wrong when saying Iran cannot be trusted. We do know Obama is not all knowing and his word also cannot be trusted.

What about his success in Syria?  Ah, yes.  The death toll is now over 250,000.  The civil war continues having passed the 2 1/2 year mark.

But the weapons of mass destruction are being destroyed. So? People are still dying.  Are you aware of Assad's latest tactic?  Starvation. Systematic, slow, agonizing starvation. Loyalist troops are not only not letting aid into civilian and rebel strongholds, which in many cases are one and the same, but they are not allowing food  in either. Is there a worse way to die?

One soldier was heard telling a young boy begging to take a bag of pita bread through a government check point, "...there are those bigger than me and you who make the rules and they're watching you right now."

While the administration basks in the fact they didn't have to used military force to rid the Syrians of their poison gas, what are they doing for those who are starving?

Have you read or heard anything about this in our media?  Neither have I.  This came from the Financial Times  which covers international news far better than our media.

Be skeptical when the administration says negotiations with Iran need be given a chance. If you look at the situation in Syria, you'll see they are inept at that too.

This is no time for glory seeking to save a Presidential or a Secretary of State's legacy. Tighten the sanctions until the Iranians cry uncle and not before.  And hope those who once believed in our strength and loyalty will have it within them to give us another chance when we shed this administration.

But don't bet on it.

The Waiting Game

There was nothing in Obama' speech last night that came as a surprise.  Actually it was a rehash of what has been said before.

So where does it leave us?  As an insignificant entity whose leader abdicated our position as leader of the free world.  Instead we are now bowing to the dictates of Russia whatever they may be.

Military action has been delayed which is what the President wanted even though he wasn't going to have much say in it anyway. However, it hasn't necessarily been avoided because we'll be jumping through the same hoops when Iran is ready to go nuke.  With even less support than we have at present.

The worst part of it is Assad will go unpunished because Russia will protect him.  That wasn't the President's intent either though I have yet to figure out why. Assad still has his chemical weapons.  Removing them will take months if not years and who can trust Syria to give them all up? And who can guarantee he won't use them again while all the "negotiations" are going on?

So what has our bluster left in it's wake?  A demoralized Free Syrian Army who most likely would have been the good guys at the beginning.  Now there is so much al Qaeda infiltration into rebel ranks we haven't a clue who is a safe bet.

We have ancient, historic Christian communities being destroyed by these rebels and the citizens who refuse to embrace Islam being beheaded.  Are chemical weapons worse?

We have Assad left unchecked to carry on with his civil war.  That's an oxymoron isn't it? Civil War? Russia will keep him well armed and those caught in the cross fire will continue to die.

Meanwhile our people will meet with Russia's people and try to sort things out. To suit Russia and Syria and the U.N. will wait to see which way the wind blows before coming up with their own resolution.

Meanwhile, the country that should be dictating the terms for the surrender of WMDs, the U.S.,  is sitting, begging and rolling over to Putin's commands.  Will he even throw us a bone?  I doubt it.

Tony Blair was chastised for being Bush's poodle.  What does that make Obama to Putin?  Maybe a chihuahua?  Well, at least he's got the ears for it.

Don't Pop The Champagne Corks Just Yet

You could almost hear the collective sighs of relief when Vladimir Putin seized on an off hand remark by John Kerry and ran with it. That Syria give up it's chemical weapons, ingredients, etc. to the international community to eventually be destroyed.  Standing alone it is a noble endeavor.  But it does not stand alone.

Why do I think ole Vlad has something more up his sleeve than one upping our President one more time?  Because I don't trust him.  Because I don't trust Assad.  Nor am I thrilled with the competency of the U.N. And because this isn't as easy an undertaking as the media are making it seem.  The big factor is there is a civil war going on in Syria. I hardly think Assad is going to neglect it while he gives up his chemical weapons.

I am going to listen to the President tonight with a great deal of interest.  I, as many others, think he sees this as his out.  Again, it isn't that easy.  Of course the Russians have to bring forth their proposal.  Like the watchdogs are going to be and what demands he will make on the U.S.

Then there's how they're going to get the weapons out of Syria amid a war and how they will verify all have been removed amid a war.  No easy task.

I suggest the President set a deadline for the proposal in the very near term or this could drag out until the desert freezes over.  He should never, ever take military action off the table.  He does, however, need to learn how to use it judiciously.  He's been given a reprieve on that one.

There are nearly as many caveats to the Russian proposal as to the President's call for missile strikes.  A best case scenario would be a discussion with the American people as to what the new wrinkles are that this proposal has brought to the table.  And that the President doesn't try to claim the idea as his own and try to make himself into the visionary statesman that he is not.

No doubt I will have a few things to say tomorrow.  It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings and at the moment there isn't a lady in sight - fat or otherwise.

The Process As Part Of The Problem

Listening to the should we or shouldn't we arguments as to whether or not to strike Syria is gut wrenching.  I do understand the argument that Assad should be punished, meaningfully, for using chemical weapons.

I also understand the reluctance to aide the opposition since, regardless of what John Kerry says, we're really not all that sure who the good guys are.  If there are any.  We do know that they're not going to like us no matter what we do.

I still maintain that the time for successful intervention is long passed and whether we engage in a full fledged war, a shot across the bow or somewhere in between we're going to come out on the short end.

However, we are contemplating military action of some sort.  In listening to Diane Feinstein, D-CA, chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I thought it strange she emphasized that she was very constituently oriented.  Isn't she supposed to be? But then we know how few that have been in Congress as long as she has actually are.

More than that however, she admitted that the negative response she has received about any military intervention  is causing her consternation. Then she went on to caveat that with the fact the public doesn't know what she does. To be precise, "But you see, then they don't know what I know.  They haven't heard what I've heard."

Why not?  Everyone knows we intercept communication from every one every where.  That's no longer a secret.  What should we not be privy to when the President is contemplating taking us into the abyss of military action?  Let us decide with clarity rather than guilt or fear.  Leave that to the President.  He's so good at it.

What could be more childish than the way this is being handled.  "It's not my fault, it's yours!"  "I know something you don't know." And so it goes. But we're talking about war.  Lives.  Obscene amounts of money we don't have to spare.

One more thing to bear in mind.  Nine eleven is but 5 days away. Last year we had Benghazi.  The entire truth of that matter has yet to be told.  Do we want to add Syria to the mix?

What A Mess

As expected the Senate has passed a resolution that will lead us to war if passed by the House.

It amazes me how the scope of blame for the Syrian action, and we the people haven't seen proof that it was the regime rather than a radical wing of the rebels who actually unleashed the chemicals, has spread from our President's inaction to the fault of the whole world including Congress.

So what's next?  Who knows but I'm willing to wager it will be more than outlined in the resolution.

I have embedded it for your reading pleasure.  I get uncomfortable with the very first sentence and it goes on from that point.  There are too many vagaries for my comfort zone.

That being said, I just don't trust this President to limit himself to what is laid out.  Since he is comfortable enforcing law as he sees fit rather than obeying thir dictates,  I have no reason to believe he will abide by any ole resolution coming out of Congress if it suits his purpose to not do so.

Now I read where the Arabs are willing to  finance the entire war if we will fight it.  Wow.  Heck of a deal. If it's true.  Why don't they fight it themselves.  The United States military is not a mercenary group that hires itself out!  Is it?

I see escalation written all over this. I'm tired and afraid.  Tired of trying to make sense of this administration and afraid for every member of the military and their families.  I think I'm stressed.  I cannot begin to imagine what they're going through.  And for what?

________________________________________________________________

Syria Joint Resolution

Congress On Syria - What I Hope To See

Parsing words seems to becoming a required skill for politicians.  That Obama is going to seek Congressional approval for military action is good. When his surrogates go to lay out his proposal I hope they hold his feet to the fire. Don't accept parsed rhetoric.

It's a given that chemical weapons  have been used in spite of international agreements banning that use.  It's also true that red line had been crossed several times before Obama felt forced to take action to save face.  I do not accept his rationale that this time is because of the scope of it.  Use of chemical weapons is just that - large or small.  But this President has a penchant for picking and choosing to his own liking.

I've already made clear that I think token action is a waste of time and to the world, laughable.  Some Senators say we need to do more.  We all know what that means.  The US will be involved in escalating an already untenable situation.

That's the big thing to remember.  This isn't about the misuse of the Presidential bully pulpit.  It's about whether or not we should involve ourselves in a fight that isn't ours, with but one reluctant ally, France, who won't act without us.  It's fair to ask our allies why the lack of support.  I've yet to hear that, but I'd guess at least partially they're as war weary, especially since we don't tend to win them these days, as we are. Why isn't the chemical weapon use as egregious to them?

If the administration briefings to Congress as to the complete strategy is better given in private, I can live with it.  But it must be a complete strategy including what exactly our national interest is in all this, how we will extricate ourselves and what we'll do if the action doesn't deter Assad.  They should also ask what we'll do if Israel is attacked in retaliation for our actions and what we'll do if Russia decides to jump in on the side of the Syrians and also why our allies have all but rejected this tack.

I'm sure, given time, I'll think of more, but you get the idea.  It must be detailed and thorough, doable and meaningful.  So far I've seen none of the above.  What I have seem is impassioned rhetoric about the need for some action because of horrors of war that we are no part of and an opinion that no one seems to share, in an attempt to make us feel guilty for not being willing to bail out the President.

The President's Statement - My Take

I took something far different from both the President's statement this morning and John Kerry's yesterday than most pundits.

I saw in both the hint, perhaps obscure, that given any chance to avoid it no action will be taken.  Both alluded to negotiation as being the only real way to solve the Syrian problem.  It was well camouflaged by the outrage over the use of poison gas on the people of Syria.

Politicians seem to be divided as to whether or not we should take military action. I'm against it as put forth by the President.  A token missile strike seems a costly and ineffective way to rap Assad's knuckles. My inclination is to stay out of it.

We've so often been accused  of trying to be the arbiter of the world's behavior.  There is truth in it and when it comes to war we've been pretty choosy about where and with whom we should involve ourselves.  Wars in the World web site shows just how many wars are currently being waged and where. Where have we been on any of them? National interest and security has been parsed to fit the moment, not the actuality.

The question that comes to mind is whether or not there is any one way to die in war that's better than any other?  Death is death and in war there is no humane methodology.  Be it poison gas, bombs, bullets or being hacked to death with machetes it's horrible.  The use of one particular method seems to me not to be the reason to insert ourselves if we're not willing to put forth the effort to end it.  Recent history shows our shortcomings in that area.

Well, what about the children?  The casualty figure for the Syrian civil war is somewhere around 100,000 people and climbing.  How many of those casualties were children?  Why aren't we just as outraged about them?  Also, when it comes to touting statistics, I haven't seen a breakdown of that 100,000 as to how many were loyalists and how many rebels or which rebels or women, children and the elderly. They're no more than a head count of the dead.

With the President delaying any action until after Congress debates and votes gives him some wiggle room behind the tough rhetoric.  It also gives Assad time to either disperse his weapons and their delivery systems and/or surround them with human shields. And don't forget he has the support of both Russia and Iran. That doesn't bode well for us.

If we launch missiles into Syria there is no guarantee that we won't be hitting civilians ourselves.  Look at what Karzai does in Afghanistan every time we do.  What do you think Assad will do?  And does that not put us on the same plane as Syria with only the weapon being different?

We say we're war weary.  The President says he's war weary.  Surely with all the consulting of experts he is supposedly doing someone must have a viable idea of how to dissuade Assad with out getting physically involved in his dirty little war.

A token strike would be no more than token punishment which will be met with distain and lower the President's credibility even further.  A President with no credibilty among either enemies, allies  or onlookers is the real threat to our national security.  On that basis we truly are threatened and there's not a  token missile launch that can be made that will alter that dynamic.

Syria And The Sense Of Deja Vu

 As I watch the agonizing over should we or should we not do something in Syria it brings back memories of George W. Bush and his build up for Iraq.  I was furious with him and never could get past it in my opinion of him as President.  Americans don't start wars.  But we did.  And what a mess has evolved.

President Obama does not want to do anything in Syria. You can see it as plain as day. For that I applaud him.  It isn't our war.  I know, there are the humanitarian considerations, but the time to help the civilians has long since passed. What we're doing is looking at committing an act of war in a region where no one likes us nor are likely to - ever.  They don't even like each other, quite evident in the way they're behaving amongst themselves.

Our President has gotten caught up in his rhetoric before.  His 'red line' statement caught his staffers off guard. But wouldn't we all, meaning the region and ourselves and our allies,  be better off if he apologized for a bad choice of words and explained why it's prudent to do nothing?  I hate to see him get forced into making a bad decision to make him seem like a man of his word.  The plans that are leaking out are unlikely to accomplish that in any case. He looks feckless no matter which direction he goes but he could save untold lives.

We would all live to see another day.  The Russians could gloat but they're doing that anyway. China doesn't care particularly.  They just thrive on being spoilers.  So those two eliminate UN approval which isn't worth anything anyway. More importantly Israel would survive one more time because Syria has already said retaliation would be taken out on them.

True, the Iranians would go back to their bomb building and Syria would continue massacring it's people.  The thing is we can't sort out any of it for them.  Sure we'd like to see stability in that region of the world and yes we have legitimate interests there but lobbing those few missiles would be like a fly landing on their arm.  They'd flick it off and go on with their battle among themselves.  We shouldn't forget the conflicts continuing in Egypt and Afghanistan and the increase of violence once again in Iraq. Not only is the fight among secularists and radical Muslims like the Taliban and al Qaeda, but also the Sunnis against the Shiites.  It's just not our fight.

I might be more inclined to ease my stance if Muslims living outside the region were having something to say in opposition to how their brothers are carrying on but all I hear is silence.  It's deafening.

Mr. President, stand your ground.  On this one I think the entire country is with you.  It's one more war we cannot win. You'll have other opportunities to act in a timely manner rather than dragging your feet until it's too late.  Please, consider doing that.  It's what that word that's so foreign to you, leadership, is all about.

Syria - Should We Or Shouldn't We?

There was a period of time that I thought the West needed to intervene in Syria in some manner to stop the slaughter of civilians.  It didn't happen.  There was a lot of huffing and puffing and false predictions and empty threats.

Now, some 100,000 deaths later, it would seem we're going to do something.  There is still the dithering as to exactly what, when and the question, the big question, as to what the end result will be.

That concerns me.  We are now agreeing that chemical weapons have been used. Though that's not a positive.  It remains unclear who used them or maybe both sides did.  Let's presume for the moment it was the regime.

Do we have a clue as to how many there might be and where?  While we dither the Syrians have plenty of time to relocate their assets and prepare for an attack.  What exactly are we going to attack since the President has said this isn't about regime change though I can't figure out why.

Oh sure, the rebels might be worse than the regime.  In the long run perhaps, but in the short term it's hard to imagine.  And do we really think that by lobbing missiles at targets we hope are accurate that we won't add to the civilian carnage?  That won't endear us to anyone.

We have to remember too, that Syria is not a signatory of any agreement to not use chemical weapons so does it not beg to question the legality of our launching an attack to punish a sovereign country who has done nothing to us?  Is that not an act of war?  Oh sure, words will be parsed to justify it.

Then too what might their allies Russia and Iran do?  Is Russia capable of hitting our war ships?  Israel is of course in the cross hairs and what better time to hit them than during the upcoming chaos?  It also leaves the turmoil in Egypt on the back burner for the time being and when the cat's away all sorts of mischief can be done by the mice!

My feeling is there is too much confusion surrounding the what's and wherefores to do anything militarily at this point.  There is no end game.  There is no one to take the regimes place that we have enough confidence in to support.  Plus our record in that area has been dismal.

It will do nothing to stabilize the region and will have the rest of the watching world scratching their heads and wondering what we could possibly be thinking this time and what we expect to gain.

The time for intervention of this type seems to me to be long past.  Level the battle field for the rebels we think we can trust, who have been promised but are still waiting, and let them fight it out.  A lethal attack for the sake of "doing something" is no reason to add to the conflict and will solve nothing.

The action, it has been said, is partially to save the President's legacy.  Why would he want to make it any worse than it's already going to be?

A Hardened People

As I watch the developments in Syria I worry.  I worry about the loss of innocent life all for the ambitions of a failing dictator.  Especially for the children who are always the hope of nations.  The question is, what kind of hope?

I've noted that we've given our usual stern warning and I expect nothing more to follow.  We have a President who has little taste for engagement in anything close to war.  I'm curious to where his stance has come from.  I'm not criticising it.  I wish all world leaders shared his distaste for it. I'd like to hear him articulate why he has such an aversion.  I think it may be different than mine but as long as it's an aversion,  perhaps it's enough.

I fear, however, world peace is an oxymoron.  We will never see it because there is always someone who sees the grass greener and won't hesitate to go to war to get it. It is a human failing.

While skimming articles from a variety of sources regarding Syria's potential use of chemical weapons I find few think there is any threat to the rest of the world.  I would think that would be determined by how many they actually have, how good their delivery systems are and whether or not their supply would be decimated by use on their own people.  That being said, let's assume it's true.  Especially for us, being as far away as we are.

Then I started reading the comments on the various articles.  I was stunned.  That we are war weary came as no surprise.  What did surprise me was the amount of venom directed at the people who would be affected.  Civilians.  And children.  The prevailing attitude seemed to be, so what?  They're all Arabs.  Consider that a catch all category for the region as a whole.

I look at things differently.  I think of the humanity or lack of it in any war.  The ethnicity of the people involved has really never entered my mind. War is war.  People die.

I understand though.  You look at their inhumanity toward one another.  You look at a Karzai constantly finding fault with our efforts on his behalf while he squirrels away millions of our dollars.  You look at Iran and their indifference toward the suffering of their own people by virtue of crippling embargoes all so they can develop nuclear capability. You look at a leader who no sooner became such because we made elections in his country possible grab unabated power as soon as he could.

You look at people who hate us so much they'll fly planes into our buildings, torpedo our ships and kill our diplomats. You look at an ally who harbors the mastermind of such attacks and provides safe haven to terrorists of all stripes including those who would shoot a fourteen year old girl for wanting an education.

Feel sorry for them?  Feel sorry for them because while they may be civilians, given half a chance they would probably turn their wrath on us?

I understand the anger and yes, the hate. They're the ones who taught us how deeply seated it can be.  As for the children, I can't help but wonder which is worse,  dying now or dying later. That's harsh. But then so is the idea that they too are being taught how to hate.  The only variance seems to be when time is taken out to rid themselves of a dictator.  Then it's turned right back at us.

I understand how those commenters feel.  I don't like it, but I understand.  As my readers often remind me, there are no winners in war.  Too bad our President's distaste for it isn't universal. 

Is It time For Specifics?

I find it beyond my ability to understand how the leader of a country can annihilate his own people.  Including those who have supported him if only for the sake of staying alive.

Bashar Assad seems to have no qualms about doing just that.  It brings truth to the idea that absolute power corrupts absolutely.  The Middle East seems to be full of such leaders and the divide between them and their citizens seems to be escalating with numbing speed and cruelty.

Mr. Morsi's power grab in Egypt does not bode well for that country after the people had finally rid themselves of the preceding dictator.  The civil war in Syria is far worse.  What began as a protest has turned into a full fledged onslaught by government troops against not only the 'resistance', if you will, but the entire civilian population.  The West has done what it does best.  Tsk.  Tsk.  It's an internal problem, they'll have to sort it out themselves.

It's an easy out for the war weary unless you happen to be Syrian or on the wrong side of Russia and Iran who are supporting the government effort.  I'm wondering if they will still continue to stand with Syria if Syria indeed brings into use it's supply of chemical weapons.

Desperate measures for desperate people?  We know they have the weapons and we know they've been moving them around.  We also know what horrible results will ensue should they actually be brought into use.  Not only among what's left of the Syrian population, but also to their neighbors who have no skin in the fight except trying to save their own.

Our State Department, in the person of Secretary Clinton ,so you know it's important, came out today stating that the use of such weapons is a red line for the U.S.  That it would prompt action.  She went on to say she didn't want to 'telegraph' what we would do until there was 'credible evidence' that the weapons had been used.

Having heard such rhetoric so many times before I somehow doubt those words will deter Assad should he decide to move ahead.  We talk, we dither, we study but we rarely 'do' anything other than posture and our enemies know it.

As far as 'credible evidence' is concerned, that would indicate the weapons had already been put into use.  By then isn't it just a bit too late?  Unspeakable damage will have been done and who knows who else might get their hands on any left overs.  Entire populations could be wiped out. The death toll will soar to even greater heights and be unspeakably agonizing to the targeted masses.

If Iran and Russia stand behind Ssyria in the use of these weapons, the entire region and probably beyond is doomed.  Perhaps it's time to move beyond platitudes and let them know exactly what we would do.

Or by following our usual procedure of rhetorical scolding, have we already done so?