Does Syria's possible use of chemicals and crossing of the "red line" mean a "war" with Syria? Troops?
NO. It does mean that Obama needs to do what could have tipped the scales long ago - send some cruise missiles into select areas to send Assad a message - sting his military air force and scud sites. Send a Predator to knock out something near and dear to Assad.
Failure to send that message emboldened Assad, who is getting help from Russia and Iran. Don't expect Russia to "go along" with a strike, but the longer this goes on the more likely the extremists will take over.
Obama's best bet is a strategic strike that lets Assad know its game over, and negotiated a settlement so the secularists control instead of jihadis. Otherwise it is another civil war and another unstable country in the Middle East we don't need.
I would not rule out a strike on Assad's residence at this point - he's responsible for over 80,000 civilians being killed.
We definitely DO NOT WANT TROOPS on the ground - except any needed to destroy or protect a chemical weapons site. We can avoid sending troops and still help swing the tide in Syria.
To see what it looked like before, you can see photos I took during a child kidnapping negotiation I did while there a few years ago, at
www.BetterTimesAheadAprilFool.com
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments from real people welcome. The only comment rule is "BE CIVIL." Let's discuss SOLUTIONS based on real FACTS.
Thanks for your feedback! Click "Subscribe" or "Follow" for notification of future posts. Feel free to Share with your friends.