Put this in the category of, “You gotta be shitting me!” Yahoo’s Oliver Knox writes:
Americans unquestionably oppose any U.S. military intervention in Syria of the “boots on the ground” variety. They’re not fans of the idea of air strikes there, either. But how would they respond to narrowly tailored attacks targeting Islamist fighters who may be looking to use that country’s lawless war zones as a staging ground for potential attacks on U.S. allies, U.S. interests and possibly the United States itself? Would such a limited approach really help increasingly desperate moderate fighters squeezed between those extremists and strongman Bashar Assad’s troops? And what risk would it pose in terms of sucking the United States into an escalating role in the Syrian conflict?
Those are central, pressing questions as President Barack Obama assesses his handling of arguably the worst foreign policy disaster of his administration and gives fresh thought to a limited military role, according to current and former administration officials and congressional aides.
“Right now we don’t think that there is a military solution, per se, to the problem,” Obama said last week at a joint press conference with his closest ally on the issue, French President Francois Hollande. “But the situation is fluid, and we are continuing to explore every possible avenue to solve this problem.”
As Obama’s foreign policy goes up in an inferno of flames–Ukraine, Syria, Libya, Iraq and Egypt–he looks increasingly inept and weak. This ain’t the antidote to Bush’s adventurism that Americans wanted.
A careful reading of Knox’s piece reveals that Knox has no real sourcing and is engaging in rampant speculation. Pretty damn lame. But, for the sake of entertainment, let’s assume some Obama insider is passing this along to see how the balloon floats with the public.
Short answer? INSANITY.
I have learned that a story will break in the next couple of weeks that will explain why Obama backed away from his redline on Syria last August. It will not be a pretty story and will further reinforce the fact that Obama is lost in the Oval Office. He really does not know how to manage Foreign Affairs and is surrounded by a group of incompetent lightweights.
The world has become a very dangerous place and the potential for military miscalculation is escalating, not receding. And all of this thanks, at least in part, to the weakness and naiveté of Barack Obama. Ignore for a moment the battles raging in Kiev and Caracas. On the other side of the globe, China is stepping up its saber rattling and threatening an island claimed by Japan. The ineptitude of Obama, Hillary Clinton and now, John Kerry, is adding to uncertainty and confusion among both our allies and our foes.
What should the United States be doing right now in the Middle East and, in particular, in Syria?
We draw a hard, firm line against Islamic extremism, especially the extremism funded and encouraged by the Saudis. We shift our support immediately to President Bashir Assad to crush the radicals attacking the Syrian people. Next, convene an international conference with Russia to map out a coordinated strategy to eliminate the scourge of Islamic radicals. Let’s go with a common theme that Russians and Americans embrace–Islamic radicals are a threat and must be destroyed.
Let’s recognize that this approach will require that we put both Turkey and Saudi Arabia on notice–no more support for Sunni radicals. Will that create friction and some problems for us? Absolutely! But better to face down two governments that are aiding and abetting the kind of Islamic radicals that attacked us in 2001 rather than try to reignite a cold war with Russia.
On this one, I’m with Putin.