Monday, June 17, 2013

Obama Doesn't Have a Syria Plan So Why is He Committing America To Another War?

In March President Obama warned Syrian President Assad that the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian "civil" war would be a game changer causing the United States and the international community to get involved.   Three months later the Administration announced what everyone else in the world already knew, that the Assad Government used nerve gas against the rebels trying to overthrow the government.

With that, the president announced we would supply military support the opposition, a major faction of which is associated with the terrorist group al Qaeda.

Appearing on Face the Nation yesterday house intelligence chief Mike Rogers asked  "What is the plan? Where are we going in Syria? And what do you want to accomplish?"

That's a question all Americans should be asking along with this one,  You have had three months since you began to sabre rattle Mr. President, why don't you have a plan?  Why haven't you worked that plan out with our allies?
Easier said than done, Rogers said, predicting that if presented with the request to arm the opposition "tomorrow," members of Congress would not likely get behind it unless they had a comprehensive outline of President Obama's goals: "It seems to me they have a great media strategy; they don't have a great Syrian strategy," Rogers said of the administration. "They've got a lot of explaining to do to come up and say, 'Here's our comprehensive plan on how we move forward on what is a catastrophic situation that's getting worse every single day in Syria.'

"...Some of the things that they've told us - told the Intelligence Committee - in the past doesn't comport with what they're presenting as the direction they want to go," Rogers continued. "We had both Republicans and Democrats on the committee express concern about where they think we are today, and where we think the administration wants to go."
President Obama threw us into Libya without a real plan and when Qaddafi was toppled there wasn't any real government to take over.  That's why Libya is slipping toward anarchy, that's why four our our people died in Benghazi because there is no real and stable government.

Does Obama have a plan to ensure that Syria isn't taken over by the al Qaeda forces, or is it lets arm the rebels and see what happens?  How do we make sure that arms we give to the rebels aren't eventually used against Americans?
"If we don't do more than add AK-47s into the mix, [Assad] will continue to win, and the King of Jordan is going to become toast," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "The whole region is about to blow up." Graham's frequent ally in the Senate, John McCain, R-Ariz., earlier this month carried out a clandestine meeting with Syrian rebels while on a trip to Turkey, and upon his return increased pressure on Mr. Obama to provide them with arms.

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., on ABC's "This Week" assessed that if he were president, "we never would have gotten to this point": "These were options that were there for us a year and a half ago, before things became this chaotic," Rubio said. "The fact that it's taken this White House and this president this so long to get a clear and concise policy on Syria has left us with the worst possible scenario right now."
Although Rubio doesn't say what he would have done a year and a half ago, and Sen. Graham and Sen. McCain would have the United States be policeman to the world.
Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., on CNN's "State of the Union," said the president's decision to arm rebels is the proper "first step," but conceded it's "a hard battle to win" if the United States and its allies don't address Assad's tremendous air power: "The reality is we need to tip the scales, not simply to nudge them," the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said Sunday. "You can't just simply send them a pea shooter against a blunderbuss at the end of the day."
Should we be interfering in a Syrian "Civil" War where if victorious, neither party will be a US ally? What is our stake in getting involved? What is the US' strategic interest in entering this conflict? What's our exit plan?

This president originally ran in an anti-War platform, that's why he sabotaged his own surge in Afghanistan by not approving enough soldiers to do the job and backing our troops out too early.

Now he is trying to involve this country in a second war of his creation without a clear plan.  War is not something a nation "dabbles" in, you need a strategic interest to go in and protect, a plan to win and a plan to get the hell out.  This President along with some hawks in the Senate are committing this country to another Libya, a war without a plan, which will end up hurting this country and causing the loss of American lives.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Anonymous Comments Will Be Deleted. That includes those people whose PROFILE HAS NO E-Mail

Post a Comment