Syria: the Thinnest Reed

I didn't support Mr. Obama (twice), but he is the Commander-in-Chief, and the use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians by Bashar al-Assad was an atrocity, so I'm predisposed to support whatever the President decides to do about Syria, whether it be negotiations, threats of force, or actual use of force. The condition for me and most Americans has to be: whatever the plan, it should be well thought-out, explainable, and have reasonable prospects of success.

For an excellent orator, however, President Obama left many people confused by his speech on Tuesday:

I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use. [Comment: OK, chemical weapons are a big national security problem, a "targeted military strike" apparently is the answer.]

I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons, and degrading Assad’s capabilities. [Comment: however, the U.S. military won't go all-in, there won't be boots on the ground or by inference lots of killing and damage.]

The United States military doesn’t do pinpricks. Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver. I don't think we should remove another dictator with force -- we learned from Iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next. But a targeted strike can make Assad, or any other dictator, think twice before using chemical weapons. [Comment: on the other other hand, the U.S. attack won't be so pinprick-y small that it won't hurt. Certainly we don't want to remove Assad. Mr. Assad, we just want you "to think twice before using chemical weapons" next time.]

I have, therefore, asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. I’m sending Secretary of State John Kerry to meet his Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin. [Comment: a Congressional authorization would have strengthened his hand in negotiating a peaceful resolution, and everyone knows that. Even some Republicans were willing to go along because they know how the game is played. Instead, Kerry will go into the negotiations empty-handed.]

As in the case of Benghazi, your humble observer still holds out hope that these terrible events and America's seemingly feeble responses and pronouncements have a sensible explanation because there's a lot more going on than our government can share with us. But that's a thin, thin reed. © 2013 Stephen Yuen