Did Assad use chemical weapons or was it a false flag operation to draw America into a situation where terror based retaliation was justified? Is Syria a moral imperative or a geo-strategic necessity? Do we go it alone, or wait for a coalition to step up? Is it about Syria, or is it about Iran? Where are the good guys, where are the bad guys. Where is the humanitarian aid that should be a top priority, where is the support for Jordan? Where is the fortitude to tell the Arab Middle East that this is they’re problem, where is the Arab League? Where is the Organization of the Islamic Congress in the U.N.?
Is Turkish ‘moral’ support nothing more than the politics of their competition with Iran for regional dominance? Turkey is on Syria’s border, has a significant intelligence operation and a highly capable military. Why not Turkey taking the lead?
Ultimately, the issue distills to its fundamental question, both here and abroad. Do you trust the President to clearly determine strategic imperatives; do you trust him to execute the most effective set of actions? Do you trust him to communicate his analysis and justifications? Do you trust him not to make it ‘about him’?
Today’s report that the Pentagon has undergone 50 plan revisions related to Syria screams that the ‘kids’ in the White House have no idea what they’re doing and that immediate adult supervision is required.
Do you trust former Doves that have, suddenly, become Hawks? Do you trust a Secretary of State that cannot coordinate a cohesive message within the administration? Does General Dempsey’s body language or reluctance to speak during Senate hearings give you pause? Do you trust the double standards currently being applied in support of the President? Do you trust that our representatives will address this issue on the merits or is it all about the President?
Do you trust that the consequences of action in Syria have been carefully considered and that we are prepared for them? Will domestic terror cells be activated, will there be a rash of kidnappings and beheadings in the Middle East, will those who express outrage at Syria, express similar outrage at the United States as the Islamist PR operation goes into hyper drive to publish photos of the dead; sometimes referred to as collateral damage. What happens if Russians in Syria get in the way of our military intervention? Will Russia consider that an act of war? Who gets to define victory, or even effectiveness? In the Middle East we can be assured that it will not be us.
Do you trust Mr. Kerry to carry the message for military intervention? Mr. Kerry, the erstwhile Hawk has been consistent on issues related to the military, such as military funding. At various times throughout the 1990’s he consistently voted for or introduced legislation to slash or freeze defense spending. Mr. Kerry has, at various times, supported severe reductions in Armed Forces staffing, weapons systems, submarines, tactical fighter wings, the B2 bomber, high-tech munitions and missile defense.
Mr. Kerry did not feel we needed: the F16, M1 Abrams tank, Patriot Missiles, Apache Helicopters, tomahawk cruise missiles and the Aegis Air Defense Cruiser; all current staples of our capabilities and used to incredible effect in recent conflicts. In 1993 he argued for the forced retirement of 60,000 service members. If Secretary Kerry had his way in the Senate intervention would not be an option, we would not possess the capability to do so. No wonder General Dempsey looked like a detainee in a hostage tape. Do you trust the Secretary’s epiphany?
What about this situation do you trust?