In my mind the goal of any campaign against Syria is first the degradation and/or destruction of their chemical weapons capability and secondly strengthening the position of the Syrian opposition. I do not see a limited attack plan as accomplishing any of those goals.
We have announced that we are going to attack so while we discuss our stratagem Assad is hiding the chemical weapons we are after. Plus a direct attack against those weapons, if we can find them, may well be catastrophic to the Syrian population.
Boots on the ground is the only way to be sure that we get those chemical weapons but we are war weary and that will not be allowed to happen.
So what are we trying to accomplish?
I might be cynical but I believe we have been forced into the position of trying to save the face of a president that has been weak on foreign policy and weak in taking the lead in world crises.
It's the old rock and a hard place issue; if we do nothing we are seen as weak and the message that Iran, North Korea and terrorists take away is one that they can get away with anything. If we limit our attack and accomplish no significant goals we are seen as paper tigers.
My son serves in the Army Reserves, as a medic, I could not support anything that may possibly lead to his call up. I do not want to give my son to what I see as a no win situation.
I do not trust this president to lead us to war. I know that, through semantics, the administration is not calling this a war. Kiddies if we put our armed services at risk it's a war. No matter what Obama says.
Randy
No comments:
Post a Comment