The perils of dropping a few non-decisive cruise missiles on Syria are illustrated in this classic video of an Obama-Assad mano-a-mano brawl. Assad glam wife even makes an appearance.
I don't see how the hawks that want to do a ot in Syria can reconcile with the doves who want to do as little as possible while still managing to send a message of resoultion rather than weakness.
SELECTIVE PERCEPTION: This gap between what the general says he told Obama and what Obama says he heard is telling:
Reports from the Middle East said the Syrian government has begun moving forces and hiding potential targets of a missile strike in anticipation of U.S. military action.
Obama said Saturday that he was told by his military advisers that any attack could be delayed without undermining the mission and thus he decided to seek congressional approval before an attack.
Later in the hearing, Dempsey said “for interest of clarity here, what I actually said to the president is the following: The military resources we have in place can remain in place, and when you ask us to strike, we will make those strikes effective.”
“In other sessions, in the principals committee, not with the president present, we talked about some targets becoming more accessible than they were before,” he said, an apparent reference to intelligence indicating the Syrians had moved forces to locations where they can be more easily attacked.
However, he said “there is evidence, of course, that the regime is reacting not only to the delay, but also they were reacting before that to the very unfortunate leak of military planning.”
“So this is a very dynamic situation.”
Since it is not clear what "effective" means, nor is it obvious just what the mission is or how we could tell if it had been undermined, this bit of verbal haze hardly means anyone is being disingenuous.
Read "The military resources we have in place can remain in place, and when you ask us to strike, we will make those strikes effective.”
Posted by: jimmyk on iPhone | September 04, 2013 at 12:52 PM
If by effective he means get past the integrated air defense network and blow away Assad's human shields in the otherwise vacant
aspirin factoriesmilitary camps, he is probably correct.Posted by: henry | September 04, 2013 at 01:28 PM
Loose translation:
“In other sessions, in the principals committee, not with the president present, we talked about some [Syrian bait] becoming more accessible than they were before,” he said, an apparent reference to intelligence indicating the Syrians had moved [the bait] to locations where they can be more easily [lure us].
Posted by: Richard | September 04, 2013 at 01:30 PM
Henry-- that's sad but true.
Posted by: NK(tryin') | September 04, 2013 at 01:30 PM
Brings back memories of the famous Gulf Scud Hunt of 1991.
Posted by: Free State Paul | September 04, 2013 at 01:49 PM
Just sent the following e-mail to Barbara Boxer:
"Unless I misunderstood your testimony yesterday, each time you have approved military action a Democrat was president; each time you have opposed it a Republican was in the White House..
"I hope that on this occasion your 'indepent thinking' will lead you to conclude that Mr. Obama's proposal to commit a unilateral act of war against Syria is insane."
Posted by: Danube on iPad | September 04, 2013 at 02:09 PM
Bravo Zulu DoT.
Posted by: NK(tryin') | September 04, 2013 at 02:35 PM
DoT, do you have any supporting evidence that
Ms.Sen. Boxer is even literate?Posted by: lyle | September 04, 2013 at 02:35 PM
DoT, I would pay money to see Boxer;s reaction if she were to actually read that email (or, more likely, have it read to her by some grossly overpaid staffer).
Posted by: James D. | September 04, 2013 at 02:37 PM
Right now we have muslims killing muslims. What could go wrong with that?
Maybe obamas bombing campaign kills 2000 civilians to punish Assad for killing 1000 civilians and all the muslims join forces to attack the great black and white satan?
Posted by: Jim | September 04, 2013 at 02:37 PM
Right now we have muslims killing muslims. What could go wrong with that?
Maybe obamas bombing campaign kills 2000 civilians to punish Assad for killing 1000 civilians and all the muslims join forces to attack the great black and white satan?
Posted by: Jim | September 04, 2013 at 02:37 PM
Great letter,DoT.
Posted by: Clarice | September 04, 2013 at 02:44 PM
What does "bravo zulu" stand for? I know what it means but what does it stand for?
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 04, 2013 at 02:52 PM
Oh, and Tom, that's "an ot", not "a ot".
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 04, 2013 at 02:55 PM
kerry says the arab s will pick up the cost.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/the-houses-syria-hearing-live-updates/#e68f139f-e012-476c-876e-2467ba30e5e3
How nice--usig our sons and daughters as Hessians for the Arabs .
Posted by: Clarice | September 04, 2013 at 02:56 PM
means "Well Done" mister....
Posted by: NK(tryin') | September 04, 2013 at 03:01 PM
Clarice,
You have some sort of objection to renaming the Tomahawk Allahu Akbar and launching them from ships flying the Al Queada battle ensign? That's rather parochial and suggests an unwillingness to embrace diversity.
Posted by: Account Deleted | September 04, 2013 at 03:01 PM
Spread the word, Clarice.
Posted by: Frau Steingehirn | September 04, 2013 at 03:02 PM
The WaPo link is the last straw-- our kids are fodder for doing the bidding of the the House of Saud, paid for by KSA filthy lucre. Everything the Lefties made up about GWB is true about Obummer and crew.
Posted by: NK(tryin') | September 04, 2013 at 03:03 PM
and here's a link to the history of BZ--http://www.navy.mil/navydata/questions/bzulu.html
Posted by: NK(tryin') | September 04, 2013 at 03:06 PM
Has Kerry given his word that it was *Assad* and not the wiley rebels who gassed civilians?
Posted by: Frau Steingehirn | September 04, 2013 at 03:06 PM
We NEED boots on the ground!
How else will our soldiers be able to cut off heads and rape civilians. Can't do that from a destroyer in the med.
Posted by: Jim | September 04, 2013 at 03:16 PM
I was always a fan of Bravo X-ray, meaning "splice the mainbrace," meaning "issue the rum ration."
Posted by: Danube on iPad | September 04, 2013 at 03:16 PM
Ah ha, FLAGS! Damn, I knew that, back somewhere.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | September 04, 2013 at 03:26 PM
So the senate voted 10-7 for the measure.
Doom
Posted by: Jane-sun - the squaw | September 04, 2013 at 03:43 PM
The headline for Ruth Marcus' op-ed piece in IBD reads:
President's Duel With Congress Could Hinder Successor
Hmmm...I wonder who she has in mind? I'm just certain that should that successor be an 'R' she has his/her best interests in mind. (Nah, I didn't read the column.) Anyway, don't you think it's a tad late for that, Ruthie?
Posted by: lyle | September 04, 2013 at 03:47 PM
McCain added an amendment which takes the rebels side in the civil war, and gets us closer to boots on the ground.
Does Obama have to do what the Congress passes? no. What a joke.
Posted by: Jane-Hey! Where's my post? | September 04, 2013 at 03:51 PM
The Antithesis of profiles in courage:
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee narrowly approved a modified war resolution Wednesday afternoon by vote of 10-7 with one member, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), voting present.
Posted by: GMax | September 04, 2013 at 03:55 PM
And, of course, Galston's column in the WSJ today is all hand-wringing about "who we are(!)" as a country and other BS now that a Dem is in the WH. If the stakes on the world stage weren't so great, this whole charade would be laughable. You could take almost any of these leftie cretins' op-eds and, with some very slight editing make them sound like a (gasp) neocon wrote them circa 2003.
Posted by: lyle | September 04, 2013 at 03:57 PM
Senate Breaks Own Rules in Rush to Vote on Syria War
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/04/senate-breaks-own-rules-in-rush-to-vote-on-syria-war.html
But it's not a rush to war.
Posted by: Ranger | September 04, 2013 at 04:17 PM
I'm beginning to understand the Russian photo-doctoring that erased undesirable politicians such as Yezhov. Starting with the present executive branch, there are many who need to be removed from our national record.
Posted by: Frau Steingehirn | September 04, 2013 at 04:17 PM
In other news, The U.S. Navy announced today that the U.S.S. San Antonio (Saint Anthony in English)is being renamed the U.S.S. Allahu Akhbar.
Posted by: matt | September 04, 2013 at 04:40 PM
all of this rushing to war reminds me of the underhanded tactics used by the Dems to pass Obamacare. We are developing a hell of a Politburo.
Posted by: matt | September 04, 2013 at 04:41 PM
When Howard Dean, is for it, ironically since he was upset about Saudis and the like.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/04/molting-hawks-mccain-liz-cheney-marco-rubio-signal-opposition-to-syria-attack/
Posted by: narciso | September 04, 2013 at 04:49 PM
Just flew in from Belgium and now in Southampton for a week and the Walker Cup.
Flying over Cape Cod and down the South Fork of Long Island it was clear and cloudless. Beautiful day. Lets hope it stays this way through the weekend.
My Belgian FIL, who is pretty worldly, thinks this is a dangerous play by the US and doesn't see how it changes the situation in Syria unless you take out Assad but then why would you hand Syria over to Iran? BTW, he was against Bush and the Iraq War and for Obama (although he didn't have a vote, of course) because of his old buddy Volcker.
Now, he believes this is folly and only face saving. When bankers see no return even for their gun running clients (heh!) then you have to wonder what is the point:)
Posted by: JIB | September 04, 2013 at 05:02 PM
It's amazing how clearly Europeans see USG folly. Why can't we?
Posted by: pinkman | September 04, 2013 at 06:24 PM
Talking Points Memo: America and Syria
http://commoncts.blogspot.com/2013/09/bill-oreilly-talking-points-memo.html
Posted by: Steve | September 04, 2013 at 09:46 PM