The Syrian Conundrum Part III: Crossing the red line…Again

To say the least, the Tomahawk strike on Syria has caused a great amount of chatter throughout the world, but most of it is misplaced and some is outright outlandish. I thought I’d weigh in, not in a partisan way, with an agenda, but simply to clear the air a bit. So here, in no order of precedence, are the primary questions being asked:

The Syrian Conundrum Part II: From Russia With Love

What a clown-fest.  I’ve wanted to update my latest Syria blog, but one bizarre thing after another kept occurring.  First, Secretary of State Kerry gave an impassioned speech on why we should immediately strike Assad, and, as I said in my last blog, I agreed with him (yes, that’s past tense).  Instead of using his legal powers as president to strike, as Kerry implied would happen, President Obama backed up and asked congress for permission.  Secretary Kerry, in an odd choice of words, scared the pants off of Assad by saying the strike would be “unbelievably small” and wouldn’t be targeted at Assad or designed to alter the balance of power.  President Obama immediately followed that up with the statement “We don’t do pinpricks” – leaving me to believe that a pinprick is NOT unbelievably small.  Finally, someone asked Secretary Kerry what it would take for the US to not strike Syria.  He said that Assad must turn over all of his chemical weapons to an international force – then said that would never happen.  Immediately, the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, stepped up and said that’s a great idea.  Syria followed suit by saying they would do it.  Kerry slapped his forehead in aggravation.