The NY Times notes a major reason the deployment of US Special Forces to Syria was announced yesterday:
The move was meant to bolster diplomatic efforts by Secretary of State John Kerry, who on Friday reached an agreement in Vienna with countries with opposing stakes to explore “a nationwide cease-fire” and ask the United Nations to oversee the revision of the Syrian Constitution and then new elections. The accord represented the first time all the major outside participants had agreed on the start of a political process to bring the war to an end.
I have no doubt the US felt obliged to show our friends and foes that we were still a player in Syria. The irony of John "Army of Ghengis Khan" Kerry being the Secretary of State backing this is inescapable. Obviously Obama is reacting with no real plan and no real commitment. My goodness - just three weeks ago Putin's commitment of Russian resources was described by Obama as a sign of weakness, so what is Obama's troop deployment today? And just as with the "plan" to train and equip rebels outside of Syria, if this latest scheme doesn't work Obama will be the first to disavow it.
We know the Times reporters will hit Kerry with this - how do you ask a man to be the first man to die for a mistake?
AND WHILE WE ARE HERE: The antiwar movement was much more about changing parties than changing policies. Now that we have that charming Nobel Prize Laureate in the White House the antiwar people can sit at home and stick pins in their Dick Cheney dolls. Hillary is OK with the current new deployment and Bernie is not pounding the table against it; I guess the pollsters and focus groupers need a day or two to help them figure out what they think.
And yes, it was too much to hope that Hillary would describe Obama's latest as politically motivated "mumbo-jumbo".