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.

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.