Some unsolicited advice to Barack Obama on Syria

By 24 Comments 851 views

NOTE: This piece was written before John Kerry trotted out his imbecilic “unbelievably small” comments and Vladimir Putin offered The One a fig leaf. The advice herein remains the same, only the timetable might change…

What happens when a majority of voters elect an unqualified hack as the head of state? Lots of bad choices and lots of bad outcomes. After watching Barack Obama make mistakes on the world stage for five years you might have thought he was beginning to figure out what he was doing. Unfortunately, you’d be wrong.  He’s as clueless as ever…

First he suggests (correctly) that as Commander in Chief he doesn’t need Congress’s permission in order to act militarily in Syria. Then he proceeds to ask Congress for authorization to do just that, with the absurd suggestion that somehow the rest of the world will look differently on the missiles raining down on Syria if there is political unity along Pennsylvania Avenue. Does Barack Obama even understand what the role of the Commander in Chief even is?

So he’s a little confused about what his actual role in running the military is… not particularly surprising given that before being elected to the most powerful position on the planet the only thing he ever ran was a community organization and some law school classes. At least he’s sure why he’s decided a military attack is necessary… because he drew a red line in the sand and wanted to be very clear to the Assad regime that if “we start seeing a bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized, that would change my calculations, significantly…” That is a pretty clear statement. Or maybe not.  Somehow that clear statement has morphed into “I didn’t draw a line in the sand…” Perhaps President Obama should ask his friend Al Gore about the thing called the Internet where he can look up what he actually said.

Whatever the message Barack Obama was hoping to send to Assad and the rest of the world, I’m pretty sure it’s not the one of fecklessness and ineptitude they’re getting. In addition to misunderstanding both his role in leading the military and forgetting who drew a line in the sand, he’s lost any element of surprise by telling Assad what to expect and not to worry because nothing is going to happen before Congress finishes their deliberations. And he also let Assad know that regime change is not the goal.

Then there is the Secretary of State’s constant pronouncements about the makeup of the rebels, who any bombing would ostensibly benefit: “I just don’t agree that a majority are al-Qaeda and the bad guys…” he told a House Foreign Affairs Committee. Unfortunately, one of the key advisors to the administration on the issue of the rebels has been Elizabeth O’Bagy, who, it turns out, is a paid propagandist for the rebels themselves. So it appears that the main source – or at least a significant source – for the President’s contention that the rebels are good guys is someone who’s paid to tell the world… that the rebels are good guys. No problem there. Interestingly in a moment of morbidly vaudevillian juxtaposition, in the very week the Secretary of State is trying to convince Congress of the benign nature of the rebels, a video surfaced of those very rebels cold bloodedly executing captured Syrian soldiers as they lay kneeling on the ground.

All of this showcases a President who is simply not up to the task of successfully leading the nation during a crisis on the international stage. It might be one thing if this was fresh ink on a newly minted presidential canvas, but it’s not. From Iran to Iraq to Libya to Egypt we have seen this president in the starring role in a series of movies that went very badly very quickly. Taken together all of this suggests that whatever Barack Obama chooses to do in reference to Syria, things will turn out badly for the country.

Sending some cruise missiles seems to be the solution of the day. Of course bombing Syria could have a vast array of unintended consequences. It may provoke Syria and or Iran to attack Israel. Russia has already said it will support Syria if it’s attacked and it appears that China is sending ships to the region. An attack might destabilize Syria in such a way that the rebels take over and we see another failed state like Libya or the ascent of an al-Qaeda affiliated power like in Egypt. An attack might cause Assad to use even more chemical weapons just to demonstrate that he cannot be intimidated. Worst of all, the possibility exists that somehow the US is sucked into a situation where it does indeed require American boots on the ground, this time without any real understanding of what victory is, what it would look like or how to achieve it. We can’t forget the outcome the President is hoping for, that Assad will realize that crossing Barack Obama is a dangerous game and he then decides to stop killing innocents in his own country – at least with chemical weapons.

Then there is the option of doing nothing. If you listen to the President and his supporters, taking no action might result in Assad using chemical weapons again – assuming it was he who used them in the first place – and will embolden not only Assad, but Iran, North Korea and many other not-so-nice regimes around the world to do whatever they want with impunity.

Of course doing nothing is not the opposite of bombing. Doing nothing is one option, but so is crafting sanctions and seeking worldwide condemnation. Sanctions rarely work of course, but perhaps by convincingly laying out his proof Barack Obama can use his oft touted charm to win over the whole world on the side of effective sanctions. One wonders if Russia and Iran will be susceptible to such a charm offensive?  Another option would be to equip Assad’s enemies to overthrow him, assuming any can be found who are actually pro-American, or at least not anti-American.

At the end of the day Barack Obama’s poor performance over the last five years has left the country with few good options. Given the pickle he’s created, I’d like to give President Obama some unsolicited advice:

Finding an alternative to bombing is likely your best option, and if the case for sanctions is made forcefully and effectively, it might actually work.  If nothing else it might get some allies on our side and create something similar to the “coalition of the willing” George Bush assembled.  If, however, you are sufficiently confident that Assad is a threat to the country and her allies that military action is necessary, your message on Tuesday night  – rather than being a argument for why Syria should be bombed – should instead provide background on a strike that is taking place at that very moment.

If he is seeking to send a message, seeking to show actual leadership and has decided to bomb Syria regardless of what Congress does, he should strike quickly and with overwhelming force rather than wait until Congress says it’s OK and then inflict some limited pinprick of an operation. If the goal is to show the world the negative consequences of using banned weapons then the resulting pain had better be pretty harsh, otherwise the world will recognize the US as the paper tiger it has become under the ill-equipped president the American voters have inflicted on the world.

There are some important if’s in that paragraph, but uncertainty and bad choices are what you get when a nation chooses to elect such an unqualified man as its head of state. Let’s hope he doesn’t fumble us into WW III.

The product of a military family, growing up in Naples, Italy and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and being stationed in Germany for two years while in the Army, Vince spent half of his first quarter century seeing the US from outside of its own borders. That perspective, along with a French wife and two decades as a struggling entrepreneur have only fueled an appreciation for freedom and the fundamental greatness of the gifts our forefathers left us.

24 Responses to “Some unsolicited advice to Barack Obama on Syria”

  1. 1

    Nan G

    So, Russia, in overseeing the collection of Syria’s chemical weapons, will come into Syria – with US approval! – and assist in wiping out all the rebels with conventional weapons.
    We will hear reports of tanks in the streets, missiles into buildings, snipers on roofs, and more.
    And, you know what?
    Many of those killed by these Syrian and Russian conventional weapons will be women and children.

    My question:
    Will Obama FINALLY produce real proof that Assad was the instigator of that chemical weapons attack tonight – since he didn’t bother during all his TV appearances yesterday?

  2. 2


    The Germans have already documented via intercepts that Assad would NOT agree to any chemical attack when repeatedly requested by his military commanders. The German’s presumably would have shared this critical information with the CIA. Thus Obama’s central contention that Assad ordered chemical weapons attacks on his own people is a demonstrable falsehood. So this leaves us with a situation of credibility regarding what Obama knew or didn’t know. What difference does it make now?

    Given past experience with Obama’s actions, specifically the Gates affair, the most likely explanation is Obama jumped the gun, didn’t have the facts at his disposal like he should have before making any decision and in a classic Obama (liberal ideologue) fashion declared, “I don’t have all the facts but Assad acted stupidly.” So are we now to be treated to a beer summit at the WH between Putin, Assad and Obama? John Kerry serving the beer of course…

    The next likely explanation if this wasn’t Obama being the liberal ideologue Obama speaking off the cuff then is that Obama knew of the German intercepts, knew that al Nursa has used chemical weapons and used this tragedy for his own personal selfish political reasons. The likely scenario being a “wag the dog” moment to distract the public and the government from further revelations from the IRS, the NSA, Benghazi, Fast & Furious, possibly even the EPA upcoming actions, shoveling more money to Green Scammers and/or a bigger prize of permanently disposing of the Debt Limit Ceiling via an emergency. A war with Syria would certainly push all of these issues to the back burner thus give Obama the cover to deficit spend with impunity for the next three years. Without the Syria crisis, Obama is facing a harsh budget battle that even his bestest buddy Harry Reid will have to bow to reality. Congressional GOPers are in no mood to simply pass a Continuing Resolution with ObamaCare being funded much less a still greater cut than the one already enacted under the Spending Sequester. The GOP facing the 2014 election cycle have no choice but to make good on their promises. You now see why the GOP leadership and RINOs like John McCain jumped on the war bandwagon? The Syria crisis was also their out as well.

    Happy day that John Kerry fatefully shot off his mouth with a snarky comment about Assad giving up chemical weapons and the Russians outwitting Obama on the issue with a good PR move. How can you say you are still going to attack someone when they put up their hands? What difference does it make now? The American People from here on out now will presume anything Obama says as misinformation, the presumption of truthfulness has finally been dispensed with so that Obama now, unlike liberals are used to, will have cite facts not assertions to be believed by a cynical nation. Only the truly gullible will now presume Obama to be NOT telling a falsehood when he speaks.

    BTW- one need not call Obama a liar to make the point to the average American that Obama and his appointees spout misinformation. Sans a motive, a person who is sincere can still be wrong in their assertions thus not be a liar. I counsel caution to Conservatives who may be tempted to call Obama a liar as this implies a partisan position. It is far better to call Obama misinformed, hasty in decision making, lacking the facts, an ideologue and generally unfit for leadership decisions based on his (willful) ignorance of the world around him.

  3. 3

    James Raider



    After watching Barack Obama make mistakes on the world stage for five years you might have thought he was beginning to figure out what he was doing. Unfortunately, you’d be wrong. He’s as clueless as ever…

    As you know, Sociopathic Narcissism prevents any and all learning by the mind it has invaded. It just blocks it. Looking for, or expecting, “learning” from such an individual, is seeking the impossible.

    The hole he is digging, may well suck down Clinton into oblivion. . . . . OK, that may just be wishful dreaming.

  4. 4


    Obama made it clear from day one that he thought America’s global performance to be arrogant and high-handed; to be overbearing and imperious; to be militaristic and immoral. Dozens of times, he made it clear that he views America not as the leader of the world or the free world, but at best as a partner in the community of nations.

    Obama always intended the weakening of the United States on the global stage. Tt may even be one of the key goals of his presidency. He is the very opposite of a president comfortable with American leadership in world affairs, and he has been unquestionably out to completely transform that, to denude the United States of its overwhelming global power, to strip the United States of its superior position, to doggedly drag America down.

    He is the very worst sort of idealist; believing that the crippling of America will bring healing to the world; that the diminishment of America’s ability to throw its weight around will make room for other, just-as-moral powers to emerge, such as powerful Islamic actors; that the denouement of America will elevate world politics to a better sphere; and that he will be leaving the world a better place by cutting America down to size.

  5. 5


    something is coming to throw down the previous news,
    RUSSIA is on hold on their PLAN
    UN has cancel their meeting on the issue
    OBAMA ASK THE CONGRESS to hold the votes

  6. 6


    yes you have the right profile,
    I think to do it in one week is too much asking from the OBAMA GROUP,

  7. 8

    Nan G

    Compare the probably fake phots of live people pretending to be dead (note the coloring) here
    with what real victims of chemical attacks look like, here:
    Note that REAL dead children are BLUE and WHITE around the eyes and mouth.
    Note that all the supposed dead, wrapped up so their faces show, are healthy-looking around the mouths and eyes.
    And any real victims as Susan Rice linked to from her Twitter account, could have been gassed by anyone, including their own side.
    There is no proof it was Assad.

    And IF such a good case about the heinous nature of the Assad regime and the imperative to deter chemical weapons use has been made in Obama’s opinion, what is he waiting for????
    Obama has to know neither Assad nor Putin can go in and get all the stuff.
    Oh, wait!
    Obama has no intention of going in and getting the stuff, either.
    Never mind.

  8. 9


    OBAMA SHOULD HAVE NEVER SEND A KERRY for a diplomatic negotiation,
    he is no way the man to win , he is a bully,
    he should have send a diplomat who would have produce a peaceful result and an action
    to get there,
    that is what it is transpiring from last PUTIN WORDS

  9. 11


    I forgot who but someone said they would have to order a cease fire on both camp so to be able to get in and take the chemicals
    it is dangerous but doable if it is the UN ORDERING THE CEASE FIRE,
    and they would have to be there supervising it
    but the one who suggested it said the UN WORKERS would say, you go, no you go, not me, no you go,

  10. 13


    @dscott: Twp things to think about:

    1) Some of the biggest losers in history have been people who have jumped the gun — Hitler launching war before his navy was ready is a perfect example — the Confederates shelling Ft Sumter and then invading the North at Gettysburg others

    2) Obama can see Russia from the oval office.

  11. 15



    Obama always intended the weakening of the United States on the global stage. Tt may even be one of the key goals of his presidency.

    That was clear well before the 2008 election to anyone paying attention.

  12. 16


    @Augustus: Editor acting up again — will not allow me to edit my own post 3 minutes after first posting. Here is my addition to my previous comment:

    Without quoting your last two paragraphs >>> imho you have succinctly explained and laid out why the SOB is, and has been, guilty of committing TREASON!

  13. 21

    james Raider

    @Budvarakbar: #17

    Probably the US openly now arming the rebels and training them — great all we need

    This is exactly what Benghazi was about — moving Qaddafi weapons and amo to the Syrian rebels. That’s why Jarrett isn’t about to allow anyone to “talk.”

  14. 23



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *