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.

It's Beginning To Look A Lot Like Christmas...

When the mail box starts collecting more catalogs than bills you know Christmas is getting close.  Even though Christmas merchandise has been in Costco even before back to school supplies, there are still a few seasons to get through.

Labor Day, which is now.  Halloween, Thanksgiving and Hunting Season!  I was leafing through a Cabelas catalog and thought I'd share with you just how much camouflage is available. It's amazing but I have concluded why.

I thought perhaps a lot of this is a macho fashion thing, but then I don't hunt.  So I did a little research into how much camo really helps the hunter.  A lot if he doesn't move.  If he does it doesn't matter all that much.  It's just easier for the deer, as my example, to see movement when it appears as a monochromatic blob rather than a leafy, twiggy blob.

So, let's have a look.  Jackets, of course and trousers. Caps. T-shirts I suppose for warm weather when you don't want the jacket.  Boots, gloves and something called glommits that expose nothing more than your fingers though I wouldn't think your hands would appear as much of a blob.  Waders, so water can be navigated. Do they help with fishing as well as pursuit?  Walkie talkies.  Blinds, of course. Cameras for surveillance.  Bows.  The women actually have a choice between camo, pink and pink camo!  Wow!  Rifle stocks.  I wonder if they have camo ammo.  Sun glass frames.

In case some wild beastie should wander into your cabin he'd not find you if you're snuggled into your camo arm chair or under your camo comforter. Luggage that when strapped to your ATV hides it.  Maybe noise doesn't count. Seat covers for your rig for critters wanting a lift.

State of the art stuff too.  There is actually a technology that allows your camo to adapt to temperature.  It changes between a warm phase and a cold phase altering the colors.

That brings me back to how deers, at least, see and the big blob theory. As I pointed out earlier, it's the movement that dooms the hunter's success. Camo makes movement more difficult for them to detect.  So the Dogwalk theory on camo usage is that by the time a hunter gets into all the available gear he can't move!

If that includes being unable to lift, aim and shoot the bow or rifle, it's great for the deer.  After all, Christmas is getting close and a guy named Santa will want to rein in the deer for his own purposes!

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?

The Mad Dog Days Of Summer

It's hot outside.  I'm hot.  Hub is in the kitchen creating, as only he can, hot salsa made from Hatch chili peppers. With the heat comes madness at this time of year.

Crime is escalating.  We've even had a killing here in Coeur d'Alene by a cop against a man who allegedly posed no threat except to himself.  Nothing for which to die at the hands of another, especially a cop.

Neighboring Spokane has had a slew of killings over the past couple of weeks. The most egregious was an 88 year old man who was beaten to death by two teens in a robbery that netted them $50.

Pretty awful, right?  Especially since the man, nick named "Shorty", was small in stature and the teens were pretty strapping at 15 and 16.  It has been on the national news so you may have seen it.

The boys are black.  And not the best of boys, having had run ins with the law before.  More was made of the fact the man was a vet who survived a shot in the leg at the battle of Okinawa during World War II.  He came back and lived a long productive life and was still active at 88 considering at the time of the attack he was sitting in his car waiting for a friend for a date to shoot pool.

The police chief has been on the air assuring us that the attack was not racially motivated but rather a crime of opportunity. Why? Is every crime committed by black on white or white on black racially motivated?  Have we really sunk so low that that's a truth?  I have no trouble believing the chief.  What I do wonder is why so much was made that and the fact the victim was a vet.

To me it didn't add to the story nor change how I felt about the attackers.  Two young trouble makers looking for an easy score beat to death an elderly man.  It doesn't matter that they're black and it doesn't matter that the victim was a vet.

What matters is two young men felt motivated to do this and chose what they thought was an easy target.  An old man.  It's horrible and senseless and is happening far more often than acceptable.  As for the Coeur d'Alene incident, no mention was made of race nor military service of either the officer or the victim.  Only a news photo made his race clear.  This too is horrible and senseless and is happening far more often than acceptable.

All the descriptive enhancement makes it no more so or less. It's egregious crime.  It's madness.