UK & US navies poised to strike Syria?
The UK’s Telegraph reports that the Navies of the United States and the United Kingdom may be ready to launch first strikes against Bashir Assad’s government in Syria as early as this week;
Government sources said talks between the Prime Minister and international leaders, including Barack Obama, would continue, but that any military action that was agreed could begin within the next week.
As the preparations gathered pace, William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, warned that the world could not stand by and allow the Assad regime to use chemical weapons against the Syrian people “with impunity”.
CNN reports that members of Congress are expecting a first strike this week, too.
“I think we will respond in a surgical way and I hope the president, as soon as we get back to Washington, will ask for authorization from Congress to do something in a very surgical and proportional way. Something that gets their attention, that causes them to understand that we are not going to put up with that kind of activity,” Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on “Fox News Sunday.”
But Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs panel, said President Barack Obama may not need to wait for congressional authorization.
I’m still wondering what the national security interests are in this strike. The media doesn’t seem to be interested in asking. And what with Iran presenting a real threat with it’s nuclear program that has continued unabated for years, but suddenly Syria is the problem that needs to be dealt with right now. I get a “Tonkin Gulf Incident” feeling about this.
Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Terror War
Why Jonn, it’s obvious. We have exactly the same interests at stake in Syria that we had in Libya a couple of years ago – essentially none.
As an actor once put it: “I’ve got a bad feeling about this.”
I think the quote from the movie Poltergeist says it well:
(in a hoarse whisper)
“Getttttt outttttt”
Its credibilty. The President said chemical weapon use was a “red line” that the Bashar-al Assad regime couldn’t cross. Once he said that, he was committed to doing “something”, because if he didn’t the US’s limited credibility would further be eroded. And of course he had to make the red line comment because chemical weapons are bad and evil and horrible and the US must make a stand against that stuff, cuz Amierca!
These people have been killing each other for thousands of years. A few Tomahawks won’t change that. If Russia and Iran want them, they can have them. We do not need to get involved.
Tony Weiner might not get elected as the next mayor of New Yuck, so maybe Obama can grab Weiner (pun intended) and let him head a special envoy to diplomatically displace Assad via dong pics and gay pride marches in the heart of Damascus. Or maybe Obama can just call for a beer summit and this will all blow over. This way you wouldn’t have to interrupt Kerry’s day-sailing plans off of Nantucket and Weiner’s old lady can once again bask in the limelight that can only be shed with the public emergence of her husband’s magical genetalia. It’s a win-win for everyone.
I think there is enough of a national security interest in bombing the crap out of Syria for using chemical weapons. If the world (read US) doesn’t jump on Syria for proven WMD use, third world dictators around the globe will see it as a green light to start gassing their own rebellious groups.
I find it much more likely that the rebels hit themselves with chemicals then assad doing it. Hes winning, why would he want to risk the rest of the world coming down on him? The rebels kill 300 civilians and gain the support of the rest of the world sounds like an arab tactic to me. (Can I call these guys arabs with out being lynched?)
Even if he did gas his own, I still take a who cares approach. A bunch of people that hate us and want us dead are killing a bunch of people that hate us and want us dead. I say let them do it.
The national security interest is that Mr. “Red Line-can’t keep his big yap shut” won’t be seen as an even bigger fool than he has already been revealed to be. There’ll be “low-risk” airstrikes and bombardment and who knows what the outcome will be. Helping the jihadi rebels is certainly not in our interests (or at least it isn’t as far as rational people can easily see), likewise I don’t see how propping up the Iranian backed Opthamologist is in our interests either.
The only interests are boosting Israels and Turkeys power in that region. This (staged) incidient is just a lame excuse
Tonkin Gulf incident all over again – yes, I get that feeling, too, but I also get a ‘Bay of Pigs’ failure feeling out of it – popular president (well, he was for a while) makes big mistake.
Something’s cooking here. WE, the USofA, need to stay out of it.
@6 – that is the ONLY rationale that almost makes sense. Unfortunately, as has been pointed out elsewhere – we have had numerous countries developing WMDs (Itan, Pakistan, India, the Norks) over the years and no one effectively said boo. The message that hitting Syria would convey is “you can have what you want as long as you don’t use it” rather than the more optimal “don’t even think about it” – but that horse has long since left the barn.
Sadly, my personal attitude is one that will probably earn me a place by the fire for many eons to come…. I’d say let Assad and the rebels kill each other off to their heart’s content. None of them are even remotely our friends, much less allies.
I don’t get this either. Those chemical weapons came from Iraq, so why would Obama and the democrats, who spent years lying about what happened to Saddam’s WMD want to put themselves in a situation that could draw attention to that fact?
Because the leftards and the MSM (but I repeat myself) will conveniently ignore that little fact.
David: fully concur. To borrow from GA Bradley: this would be the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, with the wrong enemy – regardless of which side we chose.
@9: Israel doesn’t need us to boost anything for them, they can kick Syria’s ass all by themselves, and have several times before.
@10: Yes, we most certainly need to stay the hell out of it, but that genie has already left the building, since Obumbles has been supplying the terrorists……I mean rebels, for a couple of years now.
So, what’s it gonna be, another aspirin factory and night watchman?
Well if we fire rounds all over the country hitting rebels and government positions alike, that won’t be a bad thing….they all hate us anyway so why not give the little b4stards something else to complain about?
As usual, I agree with VoV
As I stated elsewhere, seal off their borders, nothing in or out, and let them turn the country into a giant WWE cage match.
Not worth one American life.
Time for obamao to wag the dog; oops, he had already eaten the poor pooch in a java stew…NEVER MIND…
Who will go? Send me! There’s a famous statue on Bragg which has this on it.
@15 OT
Israel Defence Force is bad ass…billions annually in U.S. military aid certainly helps. 😉
Who came up with the inane term “surgical strike” like it was some kind of cancer treatment? Most retarded line ever probably by some libtard that thinks a Tomahawk missle can be programed to only kill “bad guys” or that a 2000 lb bomb can take out a target without any collateral damage. dumb.
VOV: the problem with that is that it plays into the hands of the Islamists. Striking indiscriminately allows them to say, “See? I told you – America is truly the Great Satan! They hate us and wish to kill us all! It’s another round of the Crusades!” It further makes such propaganda more believable to the majority in the Islamic world who really don’t care much about Syria, but who might be receptive to such an “us-vs-them” argument.
The above remains true whether we side with the rebels or the Syrian government. In the former case, Iran and the Shia-led Islamists use our action as fuel for their propaganda mill. In the latter case, it’s al Qaeda and related Sunni Islamists who use it as a casus belli. Either way, we’re screwed.
If and when Syria starts overtly threatening WMD use against US allies in the region, IMO we have reason to consider becoming involved. Until then, we’d be fools to touch this one with the proverbial 10′ pole.
My opinion. YMMV.
@24 Sadly at this point there is no moving past the great satan thing. There is no negotiating in good faith with any islamists, if we assist we are helping one tribe kill another. If don’t assist we are letting one tribe kill another.
In my viewpoint we are wrong regardless of what we do, I agree the best course of action for now is to remain outside. At some point though recognizing there is no one we can trust in the middle east including the Saudis and Kuwaitis and any other purported “moderates” the better off we’ll be. We have only one friend in the ME, and their faith is not islam….everyone else is suspect and their motives and actions not to be trusted.
Our enemies have all been eager to reveal themselves, we fool ourselves into thinking we will achieve a peace as we dismantle our military and f@ck our veterans.
Everyone in the world should know coming here to live while respecting our laws will turn out very well for you. They should also know that threatening to remove us from the planet will mean the end of your nation, your people, and anyone who smells, looks or believes like you. If you believe me to be a great satan that must be destroyed I am only too happy to deliver the hellfire to your door.
Bombing Syria is an idea that’s been sautéed in wrong sauce. The time to act was before the jihadists entered the conflict.
LebbenB: not sure that time ever existed, amigo. Best I can tell the Syrian opposition has always had a large Islamist contingent – which also happened to be the ones providing the bulk of the opposition’s “muscle”.
— break —
VOV: true, the Islamists fundamentalists are a hopeless cause. However, in most parts of the ME I’d guess they’re a small minority – 10% or so. It’s the other 90% – most of whom are on the fence and really don’t care all that much if it doesn’t concern them directly – I’m concerned about.
Attack their neighbors or blow up their house, and we’ve just made them care. A lot.
Could have sworn Mr. Obama was the anti war guy and was going to stop these needless conflicts. Being noble and doing the right thing in that region by in large is viewed as weakness, so Syria can go fuck itself. Let the their Arab neighbors deal with if it.
Hondo – Agree on the 90% fencesitters, but the problem is also that they are also enablers. Like the non-Nazis who sat passively by until Hitler consolidated power and it was too late – the non-Islamists provide contributions and are the ocean in which the terrorist fish swim and hide (if that isn’t too convoluted a stretch for a dry country.) The real problem is that they DON’T really straddle the fence – they tend to give at least passive support to our enemies.
#29 David
Not too far of a stretch. Think “Dune” (the book), with Arrakis, the shai-hulud giant worms, and the little maker sand trout.
David: some give passive support to the Islamists; many don’t, and instead simply want to be left alone by them. But dropping a bomb in their neighborhoods (or across town where they have friends) can easily cause those that aren’t Islamist to change their sympathies overnight. It can also cause passive support to morph into active assistance.
At present there’s simply no compelling reason for us to get involved in Syria; both sides there are our enemies.
We should stay the hell out unless that changes.
Hondo – no argument that in the real world, our being in there in any capacity serves no useful purpose… but I do think sometimes our primary problem is more the general Moslem populace than the Islamists. Like the folks in denial about the thug culture and their kids here…. they are enablers and while they could alleviate the situation, by not doing so they take sides in it.
Maybe Obama should ask the Russians how to conduct foreign policy?
The strategic key-terrains in this scenario are the Kingdom of Jordan, and Gibraltar – not Syria. Given Obama’s reflexive anti-colonialism, and the incompetence of the national security advisors (you too, Dempsey), we’ll see ourselves in another violation of the War Powers Act.
@Old Trooper
It doesnt matter if anyone NEEDS the US military power. But as long as you don’t plan to conquer the whole region you need someone to do the dirty work for you and remain restrained in the back so that afterwards you can act easier and will not be blamed agressor or war party. ISR has been in peacetalks (oficially) with most of its neighbours, including syria. And considering Syria Israel even had a kind of calmed down relationship throughout the last years – you can’t just abandon all of that for no reason and nuke ’em to the gutter. So thats why they need the US and NATO alongside with a “they don’t even try anymore” excuse for attacking a souvereign country without jurification.
Well, two aircraft carriers are being kept in the Persian Gulf. http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/US-officials-Navy-boosts-carrier-presence-in-Gulf-4769246.php
One of them, the Harry S. Truman, has just arrived and the other, the Nimitz, was supposed to return home but has been ordered to stay there.
Does anyone besides me have a really bad feeling about all of this?
*crossposted from ‘Oh, for pete’s sake….”