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 Libyan Conundrum Part V: The Enemy Has a Vote

Well, it looks like this administration is finally realizing that just proclaiming victory doesn’t make it so.  Before we went into Libya, I blogged that it would devolve into a mess without a heavy stability and support operation (SASO) on our part, and that the administration was rightfully hesitant to conduct a no-fly zone due to these realities.  The administration then ignored my prescient blog and went ahead with “leading from behind”, with President Obama proclaiming No Boots on the Ground in Libya.  We applied our air power, Ghaddafi fell, and we stuck to our guns.  No boots on the ground.  No helping to restore a functioning government.  No follow-through on the vacuum we’d created.  We just sat back and watched the country fall into chaos, ultimately resulting in the Benghazi debacle. 

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.

The Syrian Conundrum

Syria is all over the news lately, and much like Libya before it, I haven’t heard a lot of talk focused on the correct issues.  Most of the discussion centers around attaining UN or congressional approval, what the U.S. will strike, proof Assad is a crazy man, or the timing.  Then, in the middle of this week, the UK decided they weren’t going to play.  The administration’s response to this news provided the first solid words of sanity after more than two years of misguided foreign policy adventures.  National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said, “President Obama’s decision making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States.”

Hero to Zero

Syria is turning into a quagmire, and for once, it isn’t the United States that’s stuck in the mud. Surprisingly, it’s the mighty Resistance of the Middle East.  Hezbollah.

Guess What? Another Red Line!

In the movie The Princess Bride, one of the characters repeatedly exclaims “Inconceivable!” every time an event occurs, prompting another to respond, “You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.”

The Libyan Conundrum part IV: How do you like me now?

I’ve blogged about our incursion into Libya on three separate occasions, and the main theme threaded throughout was that getting rid of Ghadafi was only half of the equation.  Stabilizing the country afterwards is the other half, and, as I said back then, our foreign policy just doesn’t seem to get that.