Syria attack likely

Syria attack likely

It’s looking more and more likely that President Obama will strike at Syria.  He’s now trying to figure out what kind of a wet noodle attack he can come up with to fulfill the promise he made during the 2012 presidential campaign that Assad would be stepping over the line and would cause him to take action if Assad used chemical weapons against his people; a kind of strike that would make good the promise and not generate a catastrophic kickback.  Little did he know what kind of a box he was going to put himself in when he made the promise during the campaign. At this stage of the game two devilish factions are duking it out in Syria – Assad’s forces and the rebelling forces that have been taken over by Al Qaeda.

It’s not the worst ignoble thing to do than to tell the American people that circumstances have come about in Syria that our best interests would be served by forgetting about that promise and keep a hands off approach to what’s going on there.  The President could tell the people that neither of the two warring factions is friendly to us and that the U. S. is the only country that wants to hold Assad accountable for flouting the rules of warfare laid out by the Geneva Convention.  It was there that it was determined that the use of chemical weapons would be considered a crime against humanity and perpetrators would be held accountable in the World Court.

When Senator Barbara Boxer was voicing her opinion as to whether action should be taken against Assad at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday, she talked about the different military conflicts she supported and the ones she didn’t support.  While at it, she took a swipe at President Bush for attacking Iraq in 2003.  Liberals never pass an opportunity to criticize President Bush.  Like arch criminal Moriarity in the Sherlock Holmes stories, President Bush is responsible for every calamity that ever befell mankind back to the time of the great flood.  Senator Boxer knows that the average citizen is completely unaware, or totally forgetting, that when President Bush sent our forces in pursuit of the terrorists that were fleeing from Afghanistan into Iraq, following their attack on the World Trade Center in 9/11/2001, that he did it  with a coalition of over two dozen other nations.  President Bush spent a year building up that coalition and he had the backing of an overwhelming number of citizens including some of the most radical liberals including Hillary Clinton.  President Obama will be completely on his own with Syria and a weak attack just to fulfill a campaign promise could cause Assad and everyone else to feel free to do anything they want in the future.  This might be unique in the annals of military history where a nation goes tongue-in-cheek into an action against a country where they’re all but praying that they can do a hit-and-run that won’t result in dire consequences.