Syria is all better now. Right?

Syria's new leaders will be....?

Fallout from the U.S. airstrikes in Syria and Iraq

Background: Following a recent air strike in Syria which targeted in response to deadly Hezbollah attacks;

The Pentagon said it was responding after the group fired more than 30 rockets at a US base in the Iraqi city of Kirkuk on Friday, killing an American civilian contractor.

In response, Iranian backed protesters attacked the US embassy in Baghdad in Iraq. President Trump then vowed that this would not be another Benghazi.

The next event in the sequence was that the United States conducted an airstrike in Iraq, killing an Iranian general forbidden from leaving Iraq, as well as Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of Iran-backed militias known as the Popular Mobilization Forces. The U.S. embassy issued a warning to Americans in the region. President Trump tweeted the following moments ago:

....of PROTESTERS killed in Iran itself. While Iran will never be able to properly admit it, Soleimani was both hated and feared within the country. They are not nearly as saddened as the leaders will let the outside world believe. He should have been taken out many years ago!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 3, 2020

****************

Media fallout:  The media responded with craziness once again.  They are willing to overlook that the president did not inform Russia prior to the airstrikes as any good Putin puppet should.  Putin is clearly not happy about it by the way.  

The left who were freaking out over president Trump removing troops from Syria and Afghanistan are now, predictably calling him a rogue, war monger. I even saw a never-Trumper post implying that the president wants a war to ensure his re-election.

Many articles are saying that the president has fallen into Iran's trap and is being strategically outmaneuvered by the regime.

Geopolitical fallout:  This one is going to be harder to predict.  Iran is clearly suffering from the ratcheted up sanctions imposed by president Trump. Those seem to be the most logical next step for the president but with players like Russia and China (America's true geo-political foes) not on board 

with punishing Iran because it only helps the USA, there may not be much opportunity to increase sanctions more effectively.  The long game for president Trump would be to choke Iran economically into nuclear compliance. 

Don't expect Iran to sit complacently over the economic squeeze.  The problem for them is that they do not have much leverage themselves.  They can work through terrorist organizations they support to sting the USA.  Successful attacks could alter public support for the president.  Failure would only gird support for president Trump.  But if successful, president Trump would have few choices left other than to continue with more airstrikes. 

Many are claiming there will be a rapid escalation but I see this as a more drawn out slow burn just because any escalations take time to plot - Iran doesn't have many cards to play and the USA does not need to escalate anything at this point.

Pelosi leaves, meeting become productive

Nancy Pelosi claims president Trump had a meltdown during meeting on Syria.  She left the meeting.  Afterwards it became productive.

Let's face it Pelosi is a rambling, politically motivated hack who is more interested in a creative soundbite than a meaningful dialogue and negotiation.

Anti-war liberals (including the media) want more war in Syria.

President Trump gives liberals what they wanted when Bush was president.  Now they hate him for that too.  So what does the president do?  He fires back.

I understand wanting to support America's allies. Conservatives understand and generally support that notion too.  But president Trump is more aligned with the libertarian viewpoint (e.g. Rand Paul).  He is also being consistent.  America first also means with respect to military activities too.

While I lean more towards working with allies who are willing to work with America, I can understand the president's viewpoint.  It's not ideal in my opinion, but I get where he is coming from.

The anti-war liberals who want to stay in Syria to help the Kurds have a consistency problem that I cannot resolve on their behalf.  Clearly Orange Man Bad trumps every other consideration for them and if the president did not pull out they would have the same level of horror with his decision.

CPAC 2019 - Syria

PolitiFact = PolitiFarce

PolitiFact is nothing more than a liberal propaganda machine.  Evidence came after Syria used chemical weapons on their population this week.

Fox News reported:

Fact-checking website PolitiFact on Wednesday retracted a 2014 article that found it "Mostly True" the Obama administration helped broker a deal that successfully removed "100 percent" of chemical weapons from Syria.

"We struck a deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out," then-Secretary of State John Kerry said on NBC's "Meet the Press" in July 2014. Kerry was referring to a deal the U.S. and Russia struck in September 2013 in which the Russians agreed to help confiscate and then destroy Syria's entire chemical weapons stockpile.

Liars.

Strikes on Syria

Forget the politics of congressional authorization - that debate can come later - striking Syria is the right thing to do after Syria used chemical weapons on its own people.  it was the right thing to do in 2012 when president Obama drew a red line, Syria crossed it and president Obama did exactly nothing.  President Trump

...ordered 59 Tomahawk missiles to be launched at the al-Shayrat airfield in Syria, the base from where Syria launched a horrific sarin gas attack earlier this week.

The critics and proponents of intervention in Syria have already started reciting their talking points, but it's worth pausing for a moment.

It's significant that Trump changed his views quickly on Syria following the gas attack. Early reports are that some aircraft and runways were destroyed. But for now this act is mainly symbolic; it sends a message but won't change much on the battlefield.

 President Trump understands full well the disgusting use of chemical weapons in Syria and understands what the right thing to do was respond. 

This should allay some of those histrionics on the left about Trump working with Russia after the two parties are clearly on opposite sides on the Syria issue.  The two nations will be at loggerheads on Syria for the foreseeable future.

Meanwhile in Germany

You have this still happening.  

Migration is not a problem. Mass migration, especially undocumented invites chaos and violence. That in turn invites recrimination. Violence will beget violence. Stupid policy will lead to terrible consequences, unintended though they may be.

Ignore this

This is self-serving geopolitics at it's most obvious:

U.S. actions in the Middle East helped Islamic State to gain influence, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said, according to Interfax.

The strengthening of Islamic State “became possible partly due to irresponsible U.S. politics” that focused on fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad instead of joining efforts to root out terrorism, Medvedev was cited as saying in Kuala Lumpur on Sunday.

Unfortunately a lot of Russians will gobble it up.  The reality is that ISIS has a foothold because Obama was naive on Iraq and assumed ISIS was JV and not an issue at all.  So at least Medvedev was right about the irresponsible part.  He just got the details wrong, deliberately.

Recent ISIS activity - more than just France

A day prior to the attacks in Paris, ISIS perpetrated 2 suicide bombings in Lebanon.



And there was a possible ISIS attack on the Russian Airbus recently as well.



Is ISIS starting a major offensive, or is it a coincidence? One thing is certain, the group is not JV.

Airstrikes in Syria a yawner

The NYT did its level best for the president and fellow Democrats in describing the attack against ISIS in Syria as a "fierce" opening blow:

The intensity of the attacks struck a fierce opening blow against the jihadists of the Islamic State, scattering its forces and damaging the network of facilities it has built in Syria that helped fuel its seizure of a large part of Iraq this year.

Firstly, this is not the opening blow in the war on terror, or even ISIS. The U.S. has already bombed ISIS positions in Iraq.  And of course the opening blow versus ISIS actually came from ISIS in the form of beheading Americans.  But that's just arguing semantics.  The real problem is that the word fierce doesn't accurately capture the nonchalance or the irrelevance of the latest Obama move.  Once again, the NYT is cheer leading for the Obama administration.

True, the president has ramped up his war on terror game (but let's not call it that, shall we?) by bombing inside Syria, much to the glee of Iranian hardliners who want to keep their Syrian puppet in place.  But that really doesn't solve the problem of ISIS, which will require boots on the ground. Not that I'm suggesting America putting boots on the ground, I'm just pointing out the reality of the situation.  

True, the president is taking out ISIS strongholds and fighters, but that will only be successful in the short term.  ISIS can easily adapt Hamas' tactics of hiding behind civilians and the American public (and certainly this president) does not have the stomach for ignoring human shields.

True the president has 5, count 'em 5!, Arabic allies in the latest campaign.  Remember when the press screamed about the lack of a coalition when it only involved a mere 40 or so countries?  And no one has yet stepped up in the boots-on-the-ground mandate the president tried to impose on "anyone but the U.S.". The clock is ticking.

So yeah, it's a yawner.  The president is doing the minimum he thinks is necessary to get past the midterm elections, period.  He should not be given credit for that.  There was a pretty low bar in fighting ISIS, even lower than in combating Russia in its Ukrainian ambition, and the president once again, managed to not clear the bar. 

Yawn.

Plan of the Day: Syria's WMDs

Over at Plan of the Day, there's a brief post on Syria's WMDs that reminds us about Iraq's WMD's and connects the dots to Syria. US and Israeli intelligence knew Iraq's WMDs were moved by the Russians to the Beqaa Valley in east Lebanon.

Go read more, it's a great reminder that the Bush administration understood foreign affairs a lot better than they were ever given credit for understanding.

Obama tried to make the best of a no-win situation. Failed.

Last night president Obama spoke to the nation about the situation in Syria.  After being snookered by Putin and Assad, Obama was still trying to be all things to all people.  He agreed that the Russian proposal to have Syria turn over all of its chemical weapons to international authorities - whatever that means in practice - was a good idea.  At the same time, he pressed ahead with his ask for Congress to authorize military action.  On the surface, it seems like Obama's speech was successful. It wasn't.

• The president appears not to have swung public opinion in his favor on Syria, at least when it comes to military action. 

 

• The president decided to ask for a delay to the Congressional vote authorizing military action.  It's because he knows that Congress, like the public, won't vote in favor of the authorization.

 

• Furthermore, the delay plays to Assad and Putin.  It grants them the time necessary to hide the chemical stockpiles and if the handover option is followed, Assad can retain some of his stockpile that's been buried out in the Syrian desert somewhere.

 

• The president commented in the speech that he is not comfortable with the United States being the world's policeman.  In the same speech he said that it was important that the United States act in order to send a signal that the world will not tolerate genocide.  It sounds a lot like he's wanting America to act like the world's policeman.  The having it both ways motion Obama wants is transparent.

 

• In his frequent references to Iraq he's trying to remind Americans that he's not Bush.  It's clear he still regards the U.S. actions in Iraq as interventionist and he's against that.  Except in the case of Libya and Egypt. 

 

• The president still came across as reactionary and having no vision or solutions on foreign affairs.  The White House is operating on a Chinese fire drill crisis management model. It's becoming more clear to the American public, at least on foreign affairs.

The president tried to assure the public that he has a good handle on the situation.  He used phrase like "let me explain what that means' (condescending) and he threw a lot of statistics at the audience (line of sight does not mean control).  The president is in a tailspin on Syria and with a public that requires dogged determination on the economy from its leadership, Obama is once again pointed in the wrong direction.  He's out of step with the issues of the day as he has been since the days of Obamacare.  He hasn't just failed on Syria, president Obama is consistently failing in his presidency.

 

Obama HAS to blink now

Russia president Vladimir Putin issued a flawed analysis that amounts to an ultimatum to the United States.  As a result, the president who has painted himself into a very tiny corner on Syria just might be right - this could cost him any relevance for the remainder of his presidency.  His presidency is at stake in a sense as he has apparently told Democrats.  So he can't blink.  Except he has to blink.

Kerry Off

It looks like the Obama administration has gone from bad (Hillary Clinton) to worse (John Kerry) at the State Department.

Via Breitbart:

In what looks like an off-the-cuff blunder, Secretary of State John Kerry might have accidentally given Russian President Vladmir Putin the opportunity to muddy the international diplomatic waters and buy his friends in Syria some time.

During a press briefing on Monday, Kerry said that Assad could avoid American air strikes by giving up all his chemical weapons within a week. Within hours, the State Department was forced to walk Kerry's new red line back with the claim that he was making a "rhetorical argument about the impossibility and unlikelihood of Assad turning over chemical weapons he has denied he used."

It seems, then, reasonable to conclude that Kerry spoke out of turn. Kerry was not authorized to offer Syria an "out" or a new ultimatum. But Kerry's hypothetical hyperbole appears to have already backfired.

In an obvious desire to make Kerry pay for his flub and throw a wrench in Obama's determination to go to war with Syria, Putin has seized upon Kerry's hypothetical and called on Syria to accept Kerry's offer and turn over all of its chemical weapons. No one believes Assad would ever willingly give up his chemical weapons, but should he agree to an offer the Obama administration did not mean to make, it could stall American action for weeks and even months.

Syria is already warming to the idea.

Blunder indeed.

Syria Later Boys.

Iranian copies Babe Ruth?

Now that Iran has threatened violent retaliation against U.S. citizens (including president Obama's family), is the president going to back down?  It wouldn't be the first time he has backed down with respect to Iran.  Back during Iran's Green Revolution, when people were being killed in the streets by government thugs, Obama blinked, several times. He also gulped audibly, I'm quite sure.  It didn't go unnoticed in Iran, where the leadership has clearly been emboldened by his inactions of the past.

In an unusually harsh statement, Iran has stepped up its game.

Alireza Forghani, the former governor of southern Iran’s Kish Province, threw down the gauntlet last week. Forghani is an analyst and strategy specialist in the supreme leader’s camp and closely aligned with Mehdi Taeb, who heads the regime’s Ammar Strategic Base, a radical think thank, and thus speaks with the blessing of the Islamic regime.

“Hopefully Obama will be pigheaded enough to attack Syria, and then we will see the … loss of U.S. interests [through terrorist attacks],” he threatened. “In just 21 hours [after the attack on Syria], a family member of every U.S. minister [department secretary], U.S. ambassadors, U.S. military commanders around the world will be abducted. And then 18 hours later, videos of their amputation will be spread [around the world].”

It could be bluster, or they honestly believe they can really hurt U.S. interests.  It seems like the former is the case though.  Otherwise, why go Babe Ruth and call the shot before undertaking terrorist activities?  The U.S. has shut down embassies in anticipation of activities based on intercepted communications.  Recently, in fact.  It wouldn't be much of a stretch to divert security forces to protect those mentioned as targets.  So it sure seems more like bluster.

 

What's a president to do?  It would not be surprising for Obama to blink again.  In fact handing the decisioning off to Congress, he has blinked already. In saying he didn't draw the red line  he was just echoing others, he blinked again.  Iranians probably realize this and in anticipation, have set themselves up to look like they've stared down the Great Satan.  It looks good domestically, it reinforces their hold on Syria and even if the U.S. does go ahead with plans to attack Syria, they probably feel in Iran that it gives them license to perpetrate all sorts of gruesome activities in the name of well, whatever.

 

Obama on the other hand isn't done blinking.  He seems genuinely intimidated by Iran.  Of course the geopolitics of an attack on Iran would be difficult.  Russia and China are adamantly against action. There is little appetite for action in the E.U. There won't be a lot of allies to lean on if the president were to take action.  And enabling Al Qaida by destabilizing a regime that they are currently invested in fighting makes the outcome far more likely to be a totalitarian extremist regime  and much less attractive and than a miraculous dawning of a pluralistic democracy in Syria.  Obama also has a problem with his left flank who expect him to be a peacenik president, at some point, eventually...

 

Obama will not take action on Syria. That's my prediction. He couldn't call the shot like Iran just did if he wanted to do it. He's flummoxed.

On Obama's Cynical Abdication on Syria

The same president who believes at every turn domestically he should be using Executive Orders to circumvent Congress wherever his social progressive interests are at stake, is the same president who conveniently welcomes debate on subjects too thorny to hold a position on.  He's reverted to the latter form on Syria but only because it is convenient for him.  The president has abdicated his responsibility on Syria by pushing the decision making process to Congress - this time around.

 

Bonus Thursday Hillary Bash - Wrong on Syria circa 2011

It's never too early to dredge up the past on the de facto next president, because she does not deserve an uncontested coronation.

Via Weasel Zippers, 2011: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Describes Syria’s Assad As A “Reformer”… . Really? Why Hillary - what evidence supported that?

Hillary Clinton cannot handle the fabled 3 .a.m. call any more than her 2008 primary opponent Barack Obama could. She claims to have foreign policy credibility but she was wrong on the Russian rest, wrong on her own flight into Bosnia and wrong on Assad.  She has no foreign policy credibility. None.

Get ready for "Kerry lied, people died."

Because on the right, we are vindictive like that...

Word today, John Kerry is saying it is undeniable that there Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in Syria.  When president Bush said this about Iraq, most of the liberals who subsequently targeted president Bush as liar were on board for invading Iraq.

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that the use of chemical weapons in attacks on civilians in Syria last week was undeniable and that the Obama administration would hold the Syrian government accountable for what he called a “moral obscenity” that had shocked the world’s conscience.

I doubt conservatives are eager for a Syrian expedition at this point.  But what of the general public?  Is there any appetite at all for yet another foreign intervention?  I sincerely doubt it.  And even a few cruise missiles at a million dollars a piece might be too much for voters to stomach in light of things like a Detroit bankruptcy, and Chicago school kids having to go through no man's land to get to school these days. We'll see.  But if WMD's are not found the temptation to start with "Kerry lied, people died", or even "Obama lied, people died." will be hard to resist.

 

Of course if they find WMDs, that's another story. But don't hold your breath.

Now is the time! Uh, now?

President Obama has finally decided to arm the rebels in Syria. After resisting evidence of brutality and even chemical weapons being used - his red line - the president has finally decided to help the Syrian rebels. Now is the time to do something.  Apparently.

Why is now the time? After all the rebels have a lot of Al Qaida operatives in their midst now. And the red line was crossed long ago.

The American public do not want to get involved in another war right now.

But now is the time. Why? This is Yugoslavia-Lewinsky all over again.  The president needs a war to distract from the myriad of scandals.

That's why now is the time.  There is no other reason.