Notes on Our Upcoming War with Syria
 |
Morning Jolt August 28, 2013 Notes on Our Upcoming War with Syria: 1. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to the BBC: "The secretary also said that he thought it was "pretty clear that chemical weapons were used against people in Syria," and he believes that "the intelligence will conclude that it wasn't the rebels who used it, and there'll probably be pretty good intelligence to show that the Syria [sic] government was responsible."" Ahem. "Probably"? Don't get me wrong, I think Assad's regime is the one who used the chemical weapons, too. But I'm just some schmo, not the Secretary of Defense. Say, United Nations, you've got inspectors on the ground. What can you tell us? The U.N.'s special envoy to Syria Lakhdar Brahimi says evidence suggests that some kind of chemical "substance" was used in an attack that killed hundreds of people, but said any military strike on Syria must have U.N. Security Council approval. The United Nations: always so helpful! 2. Back in late July, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, laid out in unclassified fashion the U.S. military's options for Syria in a letter to Congress. In that letter: Conduct Limited Stand-off Strikes. This option uses lethal force to strike targets that enable the regime to conduct military operations, proliferate advanced weapons, and defend itself. Potential targets include high-value regime air defense, air, ground, missile, and naval forces as well as the supporting military facilities and command nodes. Stand-off air and missile systems could be used to strike hundreds of targets at a tempo of our choosing. Force requirements would include hundreds of aircraft, ships, submarines, and other enablers. Depending on duration, the costs would be in the billions. Over time, the impact would be the significant degradation of regime capabilities and an increase in regime desertions. There is a risk that the regime could withstand limited strikes by dispersing its assets. Retaliatory attacks are also possible, and there is a probability for collateral damage impacting civilians and foreigners inside the country. Presuming we launch attacks in the coming days (the media helpfully points out Thursday is the day we're likely to begin)… whatever happened to needing "hundreds of aircraft, ships, submarines" and so on? The only person who's noticed this, as far as I can tell, is NR's Bing West: "He has asserted that hundreds of ships were needed to strike Syria. Whether he was acting on his own or as the White House messenger in relaying an extreme statement to justify inaction, he has lost face in the region and among the other members of the Joint Chiefs." Did Dempsey think this would be a bad idea, and exaggerate the number of resources needed in order to discourage Congressional support for strikes in Syria? 3. Elliott Abrams, on NRO this morning:
Second, there is a growing humanitarian disaster: 100,000 dead at a minimum, plus millions of refugees and displaced persons. The suffering has already spilled over into Jordan and Lebanon, with more to come. The problem with the Obama administration's probable reaction over the next few days is that it appears likely to address neither of these issues, and instead focus narrowly on another: Assad's use of chemical weapons. The international taboo on such weapons should be upheld, and it is reasonable to punish Assad for his action -- thereby deterring him and others in the future from using poison gas. Such an action also avoids any further humiliation of the United States with regard to the red line the president drew (and then ignored, of course, until the latest, largest, and most blatant episode). But there are 100,000 or more dead, and that is ignored if our strikes focus narrowly on the chemical-weapons infrastructure. Most were killed by bullets or artillery; are we content to watch another 100,000 killed the same way? One need not be a supporter of the "responsibility to protect" doctrine to wonder if mass killing in this strategically important region should elicit zero response from the United States while a use of chemical weapons that kills 1,000 people elicits a military intervention. 4. Stuart Varney, business correspondent for Fox News Channel and possessor of one of the most distinguished-sounding accents in the news business, thinks that gas prices will jump 20 cents per gallon as soon as military action begins. 5. John Ekdahl Jr., over at Ace of Spades, turns the wayback machine to 2007: Presidential hopeful Delaware Sen. Joe Biden stated unequivocally that he will move to impeach President Bush if he bombs Iran without first gaining congressional approval. "The president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach," said Biden, whose words were followed by a raucous applause from the local audience. Biden said he is in the process of meeting with constitutional law experts to prepare a legal memorandum saying as much and intends to send it to the president. I wonder how long it took before someone told him the impeachment process begins in the House of Representatives. Note that if we bomb Syria in the near future -- heck, bombs may be falling by the time you read this -- this will be the second time President Obama initiated significant military action without a vote in Congress, the first time being Libya. I suppose there's a big question about how you define "significant military action." President Obama sent troops to Uganda and South Sudan in October 2011, Chad in December 2012; the Turkish-Syrian border in January 2013, Niger in February 2013, Jordan in April 2013, Egypt in June 2013, and so on. But not Benghazi on the night of September 11. Ted Cruz and the Last Crusade Robert Costa introduces us to Ted Cruz's dad: The political partnership between Senator Ted Cruz of Texas and his father, Rafael, is a rising force in conservative politics. To most observers, it seems like part of a familial game plan that has been in the works for years. But according to Senator Cruz, it actually began quite recently with a phone call. "My dad poured himself into my Senate race last year," he recalls. "In the early months, we didn't have much of a campaign. One day, I couldn't make an event, so he drove out to West Texas alone — no staffers, nothing — and he spoke on my behalf. A few hours later, I called and asked how it went. He said, 'Even surrogates for the other candidates were asking for Cruz yard signs.'" Ever since, Cruz has kept his father, a 74-year-old pastor, involved with his political shop, using him not merely as a confidant and stand-in, but as a special envoy. He is Cruz's preferred introductory speaker, his best messenger with evangelicals, and his favorite on-air sidekick — a presence who softens his edge. This past Sunday, the pair sat for a joint CNN interview, one full of aw-shucks asides. This summer, father and son have also been traveling together throughout the country, speaking to conservatives in Iowa and elsewhere. Their roadshow has enthralled many on the right and startled Cruz's potential 2016 rivals. No one else in the emerging GOP field has an ally like the charismatic elder Cruz. Parents Are Not Kids' Friends. Everybody Got That? A letter from a mother to a daughter, inspired by you-know-who's performance on MTV the other night: I love you and I want you to respect yourself. Miley Cyrus is not edgy or cool or sexy. She's a desperate girl screaming for attention: Notice me. Tell me I'm pretty. See how hot I am. I know all the guys want me. All the girls want to be me. You probably know girls who will emulate this behavior at the next school dance. Don't do it with them. You are far too valuable to sell yourself so cheaply. Walk away. Let the boys gawk and know in your heart that they see only a body that can be used for their pleasure and then forgotten. I'm sorry if you've ever felt sad because I haven't gushed over everything you've done. My role is to praise when praise is due, but also to offer constructive criticism and correction when it is needed as well. I'm sorry if you've ever felt demoralized because your Instagram following isn't in the thousands, and I'm sorry those "selfies" can never capture how amazingly beautiful you truly are. I'm sorry if you've ever wished you had a friend instead of a mom, and I promise you that I will probably get worse when you hit high school. Dear daughter, I am going to fight or die trying to keep you from becoming like the Miley Cyruses of the world. ADDENDA: One more reminder for tomorrow: NRO Digest — August 28, 2013 Today on National Review Online . . .
To read more, visit www.nationalreview.com
National Review, Inc. Manage your National Review subscriptions. We respect your right to privacy. View our policy. This email was sent by: |
Comments
Post a Comment