Get PJ Media on your Apple

Unexamined Premises

The Very Best of Hands

August 29th, 2013 - 6:38 am
The Commander-in-Chief

The commander-in-chief, muscular and robust

I’ve had my say about Syria here and on the home page, as part of PJ Media’s college of columnists, so there’s little to add until the President makes up his mind: to intervene in the Syrian civil war or not? A third course, inaction, would seem more suitable for a man of his unmartial temperament, but the Permanent Bipartisan Fusion Party will have none of that:

One U.S. official who has been briefed on the options on Syria said he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity “just muscular enough not to get mocked” but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia.

“They are looking at what is just enough to mean something, just enough to be more than symbolic,” he said.

Honestly, you can’t make this stuff up. Over at Bloomberg.com, Jeffrey Goldberg has had enough:

There’s nothing like acting out of an acute fear of mockery to get you mocked, I suppose. Remember “leading from behind”? This quote ranks up there in the did-someone-actually-say-that category. (By the way, I don’t doubt the accuracy of the reporting, I’m just incredulous that someone in a position of responsibility would be so brutally frank.)

“Muscular,” by the way, is one of those words — like “robust” — that Washington policy makers use to describe foreign and defense policies that otherwise might not be mistaken for muscular or robust.

As the saying goes, the country’s in the very best of hands.

UPDATE: Even Assad’s kid is apparently getting into the act. The utter humiliation of Barack Hussein Obama — and of the country he purports to lead — is now almost complete. Let’s just hope the former Punahou bench-warmer doesn’t take umbrage at trash talk. On the other hand, he does seem to have sensitivity issues

Related:

Military Officers Warn Against Syria Strike

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (11)
All Comments   (11)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
So, it will go like this.

Look for the Russians to evacuate their base inland. As the US ships come in range of the Syrain coast, all russian naval forces will withdraw. Very far away.

After that? Well, this is 2013, not 1983. If you know anyone on those US ships, set aside some time for funerals in the future.

I really, really doubt, that the US will launch a land war in Europe, just to engage in tit-for tat. And who has the most to lose, in a war of naval attrition?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It is best to let the dusst settle before cleaunig up.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
One problem with all of this is that the next U.S. president, assuming he/she isn't Hillary Clinton, is probably going to have to seriously knock some heads together to get anyone to pay attention to us.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The humiliation won't be complete until Obama, and thus America, go it alone, and 'accidentally' force Assad to call on Iran...which, in turn, will call on Russia...which will leave us looking like the bully who has just had his bluff called by someone who is as big and strong and mean as he is.

That's when our humiliation will be complete.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
It's not possible to humiliate someone who hasn't a shred of humility in his character.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
As it stands now, there is only one cogent reason to intervene in Syria, and that is to save Obama's face after he rashly established a "red line" against the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war. A war he helped start with his incredibly stupid foreign policy.

Let Obama eat crow, it will be good for him. A little humility never hurt an arrogant dictator.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
There is no amount of bombing that can make him look good at this time.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Does anyone doubt, that should we bomb Syria, the complexities that follow would require that Obama, himself, take up the role of military commander. Of course, he'll have Susan Rice, Jarret, Axelrod and Emmanuel on his Advisory War Counsel, but all the questions about battle decisions and tactical matters will be his.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
If we have learned one truth since 9/11, it's that Moslems like to kill each other. And via suicide, if necessary.

Bosnia, Iraq, Egypt, it doesn't matter: when freed from their tyrant, at great cost, they as a culture continue to murder each other by the tens of thousands.

Why should we waste our resources killing one side or the other? Let the Syrians -- and the rest of Islam -- continue to kill each other. They like it.

Ironic Syria point: Obama will be siding with the rebels -- our old friends Al Qaeda.

Heckuva job, Barry.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
We can arrive at NO other answer.

The answer....is NO.

The Senator who insisted that we needed UN permission has become the President who insists he can ignore an entire representative democracy.

The Senator who insisted that rape rooms and wood chipper entrails, gassed Kurds and an open declaration of assassination plans against a US President was not enough to believe that our interests were at stake, (although Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright and William Cohen openly disagreed on the Sunday morning news programs...that the BIGGEST THREAT TO WORLD SECURITY was Saddam passing off WMD's...some of which...WE gave him)...now says a pimple on the ass of Iran's world domination play is worthy of a military response.

So, ok. Let's forget naked hypocrisy and principles of convenience.

And, the kneepad-donning, slobbering sycophants that passes for a mass media in this country...which steadfastly refuses to hold this administration accountable for any scandal, atrocity, rape of the Constitution or misfeasance/malfeasance.

Let us forget all of that...for a moment.

Instead, what is the "objective"? From my seat in the centerfield bleachers there appears but one.

Obama...in permanent "man in the mirror" mode, wants to save face. He has NO military objective. Not one.

He has no geopolitical objective. No plan to enhance OUR interests.

He has no security objective.

He has no fiscal objective.

We don't get stronger in the region, stronger in the economy, stronger in influence, stronger in homeland security, stronger in any way, shape or form.

Therefore, he will prosecute this war with lobbed missiles and drone strikes like he is Donkey Kong. The "just enough" theory of operational theater.

Sorry....I don't give a Tinker's Dam about Obama's face...or saving his bony other word for the Kong's Donkey from criticism, ridicule and scorn.

It is a sure way to lose good men...for bad reasons.

Obama's weakness and sophistry has made the world more dangerous. But, we can't call on the cause... to be the cure.

There may be a right answer to Syria...but boolean logic leads us to the same conclusion, each and every way we submit it.

ALL answers that have Obama at the helm...lead to NO.



1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I'm still baffled by the question, "To what ends?" What is the US upside here?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All