Like a boxer announcing he’s going to throw an uppercut now, President Obama went on PBS and announced that he plans to fire a limited “shot across the bow” of the Syrian government.
“If we are saying in a clear and decisive but very limited way, we send a shot across the bow saying, ‘stop doing this,’ that can have a positive impact on our national security over the long term,” Obama said.
“Clear and decisive but very limited” — let’s ponder that a moment.
Now, I could imagine a different president — say, Reagan — using a “clear, decisive and limited” attack to send an effective message. It would probably involve dropping a really, really big bomb on the presidential palace in the middle of a city — something just short of a nuke, like one of the infamous “daisy cutters.”
But I get the impression that’s not what Obama means. His history shows not an aversion to violence, but an aversion to violence being attributed to him. Think of Afghanistan, where the rules of engagement were changed to appease Muslim sensibilities at the cost of American lives. And think of Libya, where the U.S. military “supported” other countries in the fighting and employed mercenaries, even though we were key in instigating the conflict that tossed out Moammar Gadhafi. And then there’s Syria itself, where Obama has been covertly supplying arms and personnel (mercenaries again) for years to instigate and carry out the proxy “civil” war.
If Obama were, for once, to come out and openly attack a country with U.S. resources, I’m guessing that we’re talking about blowing up another nerve gas/milk factory, and maybe an airfield or two.
That’s about all Obama has the stomach for at the moment because he has never been a man of convictions. As much as he wants to boot out the Assad regime and replace it with the Muslim Brotherhood, he also wants to keep his flagging poll numbers high.
The announcing of military strategy was done just to stroke Obama’s ego, of course. He hopes to appear as a man of reason, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, all the while continuing his warmongering in the Mideast.
If he were to start feeling broader support from his party or from other countries’ leaders, the picture would rapidly change. Obama would relish the opportunity to repeat the Egyptian experiment in Syria and see if the Syrians, unlike their Egyptian counterparts, will sit still for the new tyrants.
Obama’s emotional support for the Muslim Brotherhood has been public for some time. His actual connections to the Brotherhood seem to be all secondhand but are prominent enough to be worrisome, including his brother Malik, who has been accused by Egyptian officials of being the Brotherhood’s international money man.
The Administration should be worried about the hornet’s nest it will be poking if it opens fire on Syria, with Russia, China and Iran all staring down the barrel of a gun at U.S. involvement. After greatly weakening our armed forces with his sequester nonsense, pandering to homosexuals and pushing women into frontline combat units, even Obama can’t be dim enough to think the U.S. alone could stand off against three nuclear-capable armies.
But it’s a fair question how much those considerations even weigh in this Administration’s decisions, which are ultimately all about feeding Obama’s narcissism.
He’s being egged on by the likes of the New York Times, which showed its hypocrisy by running an article telling Obama to “bomb Syria even if it’s illegal,” meaning that the U.S. should jump in even without Security Council support.
The fact that Obama thinks he can just tell Syria “stop doing this” with a “shot across the bow” and then walk away shows how immature, egotistical and dangerous he is.