Even with a clear 70% of Americans polled saying they don't want the US involved in the Syrian civil war - even to stifle alleged chemical weapons usage by the Assad Regime, President Obama and his entourage of faithful servants are pressing on anyway.
One of the few truly staunch allies we have, Great Britain voted to stay away from the controversial subject in its entirety giving David Cameron a tough job; telling Obama he was going to have to follow the will of the British Parliament.
Maybe President Obama should take a lesson from his contemporary in merry ole' England.
As you look at this try to consider the motivations for such an attack. For Assad, there isn't one. The Regime has clearly made substantial gains in their effort to crush the rebellion. In addition, President Obama and the world, really, have made it clear that the introduction of chemical weapons would be a game changer and not one that would favor Assad or his Regime.
On the other hand, the Rebels have everything to gain from any evidence of chemical weaponry. It really doesn't matter whether the Regime, the Rebels or some third party agency is responsible, this Administration has made it clear for at least a year that they have wanted to arm the Rebels and would strongly favor a Regime change in Syria.
The Saudis, whom the AP story implicates, are largely Salafist (Sunni) and thus unnatural enemies of Assad who is Shiite and "stranger" in the larger Sunni population of Syria. Being as Iran favors Assad, Saudi Arabia's natural proclivity is to oppose him. Should he prevail against the rebellion and remain unchallenged by outside forces, the generous help offered by Iran and their ally, Russia, could by Saudi measure destabilize the region; a fact that is still not a good enough motivation for a US attack. The reality is, whether Sunni, Shiite, Salafist, Wahhabi, True Soldier or Apostate, any Islamic-centric nation in the region will remain unfriendly to the US and to Israel and until they pose an overt and existential threat to the US, we have no horse in the Syrian's unseemly race.
The absence of National Security issues aside, the problem for the White House is its lack of proof, or at least a persuasive argument in the light of conflicting reporting by the AP and scientific proof presented by Russia both of which place the blame for the chemical introduction of Sarin on the Syrian Rebel forces.
The AP report includes conversations with Rebels and family members both accepting blame for the release while castigating Saudi Intel agents they claim gave them the weapons without actually telling them what they were or how to employ them. In fact, the Rebels told the AP reporter that the release was accidental.
In the Russian report, Scientists gutted the Administration's claims by providing information about the nature of the delivery system as well as the explosive - neither of which, they said, were elements commonly found in the kinds of chemical weapons found in the Syrian arsenal. They followed up by stating that those elements were typical in the kinds of weapons used by the Rebels.
If you will recall, the UN Inspectors had originally entered Syria to follow up on allegations that the Rebels had in fact fired chemical weapons in the first place. And we should keep in mind that they dismissed the allegations having only been on the ground for many hours and then cast their own allegations against the Assad Regime - without ever having reached the site of the attack to collect samples.
We should also keep in mind that the Rebel forces in Syria are largely infiltrated by and in some cases led by, Al Qaida operatives as the Rebel forces in Libya were during their civil war.
You know; Al Qaida. The same Al Qaida we have been fighting for the past 14 years and who everyone in DC blamed for the attacks on the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon.
That fact alone should give every red-blooded American pause. Do we really want to sidle up to the very people who launched a bloody assault on American citizens, on US soil and who are partly responsible for the deaths of several thousand American Service Members and Allied and NATO members these past 14 years?
For those who don't see any particular conflict with this; fighting them in one theater while arming them in another, take a closer look at this Al Qaida saturated rebel force and their sense of fair play on the battlefield. If anyone can still justify supporting these cretins in any way; materially, financially, morally or militarily, there probably isn't anything that will dissuade you.
Speaking of troubling, the vociferous and theatrical spewings of John Kerry would cause Shakespeare to convulse. The fact that he is supporting a strike on Assad should cause all Americans to question the validity of the Administration's claims. Let's face it, Kerry has not exactly been consistent throughout his years in the public arena. His own Service time has been marred by claims made by hundreds of his fellow Service members whose collective memories of his service time differs greatly from what Kerry has told us. In the years following his release from Active Service, Kerry was a clear detractor of our involvement in Vietnam. Decades later, he challenged George W. Bush on Iraq using the some of the very arguments we are using to challenge him on Syria, today.
Based on his retorts, Kerry doesn't like being challenged.
John McCain's little faux pas with an Iphone during hearings this week didn't draw much more than a wink and a bit of pleasant joking from either the mainstream media personalities or, sadly, McCain himself. Considering it is McCain who is campaigning to send America's Sons and Daughters into the midst of a civil war, raging in another Islamic nation with still no discernible plan, makes his dismissive attitude that much more disgusting! I can tell you if a Staff Non Commissioned Officer or even a Private acted this way during an operational briefing, the flame protruding from the rear area of their trousers would be burning brightly weeks after the application of Non Judicial Punishment and healthy dose of attention getting additional duty.
As is so typical with this Administration, there are far too many questions unanswered and far too many entangled entities to be able to declare so definitively that the Assad Regime which had the most to lose in this, is guilty.
And if this is truly that complicated, how is it that this President, his Administration and apparently a growing fan base in Congress is so convinced that striking out at anyone, at this stage will provide the "encouragement" the strike is intended to provide?
And if they are wrong, how does this not give impetus for the Assad Regime, Iran and even Russia to retaliate in some fundamental way against US forces in the region, and Israel.
And is the American population going to stand for one more blunder by an Administration that is defined by incompetence in Foreign Policy?
Semper Fidelis;John Bernard