An attempt is made to share the truth regarding issues concerning Israel and her right to exist as a Jewish nation. This blog has expanded to present information about radical Islam and its potential impact upon Israel and the West. Yes, I do mix in a bit of opinion from time to time.
Friday, August 30, 2013
Who are the neo-con cowboys now?
Last Updated: 1:13 AM, August 30, 2013
secretary of state boiled with moral indignation, American pride and
war bluster. The defense secretary huffed that America has “moved assets
in place” and is “ready” to punish the strongman. And though the
president says he has yet to decide whether to attack, leaked details of
the coming military action were all over the newspapers: Within “days,”
US Navy ships will launch a barrage of Tomahawks at selected targets.
Have George W. Bush and his band of cowboy neo-cons retaken the White House?
If only. This time the secretary of state is John Kerry, who launched a
political career opposing the Vietnam War. The defense secretary? Chuck
Hagel, who revived his career by quitting his party after the Iraq war.
part of a team that includes Vice President Joe Biden, who once vowed
to impeach any president that goes to war without congressional
approval. And, of course, President Obama, who became president in large
part because, as a junior senator, he voted against the Iraq war. And
who has been insisting that the “tide of war is receding.”
What’s up with all that?
Labor Day. Summering Americans haven’t followed events in Syria
closely, and now: surprise! Team Obama is laying the ground work for an
imminent attack on Syria to send its bloody-handed President Bashar
al-Assad a message. They’re even hinting that they’ll go ahead with
their plans without an OK from Congress, let alone the “international
recently, Obama rarely talked about Syria. Even now he’s yet to
formally address the nation and explain why we’re about to lob cruise
missiles at a foreign country. Congressional leaders were briefed only
yesterday of some of the intelligence underlining Obama’s plans.
justification for the attack is the use of chemical weapons last week
in Syria. Evidence reportedly comes from Israeli intelligence. Other
pieces of intel were laid out yesterday by British Prime Minister David
Cameron. Battling his Labor opposition, Cameron agreed to delay joining
any military action until the UN Security Council finishes going through
the motions of authorizing it, knowing full well that it would end in a
Russian veto. He then lost the parliamentary vote anyway. Washington,
nevertheless, made clear that we’d enforce international “norms” by
ourselves if necessary.
Based on Israeli intelligence, America plans to hit a Mideast Baathist
regime over weapons of mass destruction, ignoring the UN — and even
Congress. Have we missed any of the clichés that were (unfairly) thrown
at Bush and the neo-cons before and after the Iraq war?
two and a half years, Obama’s spokesmen have fiercely argued that
despite carnage that left more than 100,000 Syrians dead and created
nearly 2 million refugees, America’s involvement there would be
disastrous. Except last year, in a moment of weakness, Obama called the
use of chemical weapons in Syria a “red line” that would change his
“calculation.” And though there were several chemical attacks since
then, the horror and scope of last week’s assault, with hundreds dead,
including suffocated children, was too much to ignore.
So, poof! All the arguments against any military involvement in Syria were gone.
Obama is no neo-con. His plans, reportedly, are to hit a very limited
number of targets: no regime change for him. No enforcement of a no-fly
zone that could strengthen the anti-regime opposition. Not even a
significant blow to Assad’s chemical caches.
Iran officials threaten a regional war if Syria is attacked. Turkey
fears an attack on refugee centers near its border. Damascus threatens
to attack Jordan, and its UN ambassador accuses Israel of being behind
Obama’s new militancy. (Yesterday Israelis formed long lines at gas mask
distribution centers in Haifa and Tel Aviv.) Assad may be cautious
about hitting Israel, Jordan or Turkey. But some of his underlings, or
Iranian agents, or Hezbollah terrorists may yet decide to retaliate on
their own. These risks would be worth it had Obama decided to make a
difference in Syria, rather than just send a message.
As is, he’s willing to risk breaking some eggs, but he won’t make the omelet.
Welcome to the war, Mr. President. Now how about fighting it?