Category: Syria

by Smitty

Fareed Zakaria is miffed:

. . .it’s hard not to conclude that the administration’s handling of Syria over the last year has been a case study in how not to do foreign policy.

But will the media grow some stones and note that Obama’s foreign policy is roughly as jacked up as his domestic rodeo clownery?
Joe Curl notes at the Washington Times:

Whatever happens, this much is clear: We’re no longer talking about the IRS targeting tea party groups, the Justice Department tapping reporters’ phone lines, the NSA’s surveillance programs, Benghazi. The president has smartly changed the subject to the most important decision a commander in chief makes: war.

Syria looks like a twofer:

1. #OccupyResoluteDesk can control the news cycle, and
2. the media can pause its standard hoovering and feign doing its traditional job on a narrow topic,

all the while accidentally-on-purpose diverting from

• Benghazi,
• the IRS,
• the debt ceiling,
• O-bomb an economy near you like he don’t Care

or half a dozen other scandals like Pigford and the EPA.

If this President was anything other than a continuous river of falsehood, I might begin to feel embarrassed by my cynical attitude and unwillingness to give the guy the benefit of the doubt. But this is the time to double down, not ease up.

via Instapundit and Newsbusters

“Obama: Anatomy of a World Leader,” by Alex Gray (detail)

Shorter @BarackObama: "Assad has crossed the Red Line! We must act! I'm going to try the 5-iron on this shot …" http://t.co/80oIVA7BPR

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) August 31, 2013

Could he possibly look more ineffective if he tried? A year ago, after the Syrian civil war had already been going on for about 14 months, Obama declared that the Assad regime would cross a “red line” if it used chemical weapons against the opposition. By the end of April this year, there was already pretty clear evidence that chemical weapons had been used; in June, U.S. officials said chemical weapons had been used, and by early August, the Syrian opposition supplied video that appeared to confirm a chemical weapons attack.

And . . . nothing.

Nothing but a lot of noise and indecisive hand-wringing.

Let me be clear: I’m against U.S. intervention in Syria. As bad as Assad is, there are indications that the opposition is not much better.

If the U.S. had intervened early, maybe there could have been a chance of bringing to power a more-or-less secular, more-or-less pro-American coalition in Syria.

Now? The place is reportedly crawling with 10,000 foreign jihadis, key groups within the opposition have clear ties to al-Qaeda, and there’s little reason to expect that Assad’s ouster will do anything but turn Syria into a dangerously violent radical Islamic terror state. It’s a bad situation, and American intervention would probably only make it worse.

Still, the worst possible thing you can do in either  foreign policy or poker is to be exposed as a bluffer, and right now Obama’s looking like that idiot who raised pre-flop with a pair of 7’s.

Never threaten war if you’re not ready to fight, and once the British Parliament voted against attacking Syria, Obama was stuck with his pair of 7’s. OK, so he reverted to campaign mode: Says he’s going to wait for congressional authorization — which he knows damned well he won’t get — after which he will then blame Republicans as “obstructionists,” even though Democrats don’t want this war, either.

He’s a great bullshit artist, but he has never been anything more.

Life imitates @TheOnion: "President Obama Announces Next Steps on Syria, Heads to Golf Course" http://t.co/gBWauKBrru #p2 #tcot #Syria

— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) August 31, 2013

John Kerry will do all five Sunday shows. Kerry is not even an adequate bullshit artist. This should be amusing.

by Smitty

Could be the most unintentionally funny headline of the year: “Bomb Syria, Even if It Is Illegal”

There are moral reasons for disregarding the law, and I believe the Obama administration should intervene in Syria. But it should not pretend that there is a legal justification in existing law. Secretary of State John Kerry seemed to do just that on Monday, when he said of the use of chemical weapons, “This international norm cannot be violated without consequences.” His use of the word “norm,” instead of “law,” is telling.
Syria is a party to neither the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 nor the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, and even if it were, the treaties rely on the United Nations Security Council to enforce them — a major flaw. Syria is a party to the Geneva Protocol, a 1925 treaty that bans the use of toxic gases in wars. But this treaty was designed after World War I with international war in mind, not internal conflicts.

‘Rodeo clown’ is the new cowboy, no? After around 6 years of anti-Bush Adventurism arguments (and the bulk of a year spent in Afghanistan helping carry out one of Obama’s rare promises kept) the skepticism has kind of settled in. Also, one cannot possibly fathom what strategic interest the U.S. even has in the Levant. Maybe standing by our ally, Israel. It is a cheery thing to see the occasional greeting on YouTube from Bibi Netanyahu. But is the refreshment of hearing from an actual leader of the non-rodeo-clown variety of sufficient value to justify throwing blood and treasure at Damascus?

Of course ethics, not only laws, should guide policy decisions. Since the Rwandan genocide and the Balkan mass killings of the 1990s, a movement has emerged in support of adding humanitarian intervention as a third category of lawful war, under the concept of the “responsibility to protect.” It is widely accepted by the United Nations and most governments. It is not, however, in the charter, and it lacks the force of law.

Morality, or ethics? I’d argue, against the dictionary, that the two are not synonymous. There really isn’t any moral case in favor of disregarding law. Law is a human product, and therefore may be incomplete, or out of sync with the times. There could be ethical reasons for disregarding a law. I wish the author, Hurd, had provided a link to this famous movement, though. Maybe the “humanitarian intervention” community could help us track down the elusive anti-war movement that flourishes during Republican administrations, whenever those corporatists are out to drive up profits. Perhaps the anti-war movement is cryogenically suspended in Jane Fonda’s basement.
I’ve got to emphasize this closing bit:

Since Russia and China won’t help, Mr. Obama and allied leaders should declare that international law has evolved and that they don’t need Security Council approval to intervene in Syria.
This would be popular in many quarters, and I believe it’s the right thing to do. But if the American government accepts that the rule of law is the foundation of civilized society, it must be clear that this represents a new legal path.

Anybody who thinks that Russia isn’t fomenting unrest to drive up oil prices is clueless. President Rodeo Clown should know that peace, prosperity, and a Keystone XL pipeline are the best ways to stick it to the Russian bear. At least in DC, no one uses the phrase “it’s the right thing to do” without a disdainful eye roll. In DC it means: sure, we’re jacked up to high heaven, but isn’t everything else, too?

via Insty

Assad aside:
Rush’s brother David considered afflicting the Syrians with ObamaCare,

.@DavidLimbaugh I'm not sure, but the Geneva Convention may have a "Grossly Cruel Idiocy" clause, halting the weaponization of #ObamaCare

— Smitty, Ex-streamist (@smitty_one_each) August 29, 2013