Playing "Decider" On Syria
In all the news about the opening of the new George W. Bush presidential library last week, what was apparently the whizziest feature of the library was highlighted by many -- a sort of "decider room" exhibit. You go into the room, are presented with a crisis that Bush faced, and then the clock ticks down and you have to make a decision about what to do. A video of Bush then appears explaining why he either agreed with your decision or disagreed with it.
Bush made the word "decider" famous, when he described his job as being "Decider In Chief." His point was that, at some point, decisions must be made and the hardest and toughest decisions in America are the ones that came across his desk. Fair enough. Decisions made in the Oval Office involve risks most Americans don't fully appreciate or think through -- including those involving life or death for Americans in uniform.
We seem to be at one of those "decider" moments on the world stage. President Obama stated that use of chemical or biological weapons by the Assad regime in Syria would be a "red line" or a "game changer" and that America would respond to such use in unspecified ways, with serious consequences. The evidence is now in, and several intelligence agencies (in several countries) now say it is likely that Syria has indeed used such weapons, most likely the poison Sarin. This is the decision point Obama now faces.
No decision has been made, quite obviously. The pundits this weekend seemed to assume that Obama had indeed made a decision because of a vague quote from him last week, but the reality is either (1) no decision has yet been made and the options are being studied, or (2) a decision has been made, but so far it is being carried out covertly. Which means the subject is still an open one, and not (as many are assuming) settled policy in any way.
Obama's never had much of a Syria policy, one way or another. As opposed to what happened in Libya, Obama has mostly sat on the sidelines while 70,000 people have died in Syria's fighting. He says we're for regime change, and he says humanitarian aid is acceptable, but that's as far as he's gone. Except for that statement about the chemical or biological weapons, which is probably why the pundits are pushing the point.
The big problem -- not just for Obama, but for America -- is that there simply aren't a whole lot of good options in Syria. So I thought it'd be worthwhile to go through them, in the spirit of Bush's "decider room." Here's what America can do, along with the risks and costs, in Syria. If you were President Obama, what would you do? None of these options are very good, I should warn you at the outset. But that's the nature of being Decider In Chief -- sometimes you have to choose between a lot of not-very-good options with plenty of risks attached.
Get the Arab League and Turkey on board
This one should really be a precursor for any action America takes. In Libya, for instance, the Arab League was in agreement with overthrowing the regime and helped in all sorts of ways, including in ways we were not prepared to (such as shipping weapons to the rebels). The Arab League has been in the background during the Syrian crisis, because the issues are more complicated in terms of their outlook. But getting them on board would give any other option taken a lot more legitimacy in the region.
Turkey is even more important, because unlike some of the Arab League, they're right next door to Syria. If any military option is chosen, having Turkey on board would be immensely important -- again, both for legitimacy and for logistic support (airfields and ground routes into Syria, for instance).
Lightly arm the rebels
That first choice was a diplomatic one. The rest of these are military, to a varying degree. The first of these is to arm the rebels, but only in very limited fashion. Bullets, military rifles, maybe some anti-tank weapons -- but no more. This wouldn't "escalate" the war in any way, it would preserve the balance of weaponry which currently exists, but it would allow the rebels to resupply and expand their forces, perhaps.
Of course, the problem with this option (and the next one) is the important question: which rebels would we be arming? There are a number of groups fighting in Syria. Some of them are not exactly our allies outside the country. Some of them are even Al-Qaeda affiliates. In any situation as chaotic as a civil war or insurrection, it's going to be very hard to accurately track which weapons go where and who has their hands on them at any one time. This is precisely the reason Obama hasn't taken this step yet.
Give the rebels heavy weapons
Of course, preserving the balance of weaponry of the two sides in the conflict isn't a very satisfying answer, militarily. The official Syrian troops have an overwhelming advantage over the rebels, including such things as jet fighters and bombers. If the rebels are going to have any chance of actually winning, the balance of weaponry must shift more in their favor.
So the option exists not only to arm the rebels, but give them some arms that will actually do them some good -- like antiaircraft guns or portable missiles that are capable of downing the aircraft that are bombing civilians. There are other things we could give the rebels as well, but this would likely be the first step -- some sort of capability to fight back against the aircraft Assad is using.
Of course, this leads to the same problem as the previous option, except on steroids. Anti-aircraft weapons or missiles are really the last thing we want to be handing over to a group like Al-Qaeda, when you stop and think about it. But doing so might shift the balance of power decisively enough to give the rebels a chance of winning a lot sooner than other options.
No-fly zone
This is a catchy little phrase. Just rolls off the tongue. Seems like an easy answer to the balance of weaponry problem, too. Declare a "no-fly zone" and shoot down Syrian aircraft if they attempt to fly. Worked in Libya, didn't it?
Well, yes, it did indeed change the battlefield in Libya. But Libya had some incredibly out-of-date weapons, when it came to defending against air attacks. These defensive weapons were obliterated in the first days, and a no-fly zone was successfully enforced thereafter.
Syria, on the other hand, is not living in the 1950s. They have up-to-date air defenses. They could, to put it bluntly, probably shoot down some enemy planes. So that is the cost, right up front. We would likely lose some American pilots. Dead (or captured) pilots is the cost of choosing this option.
The question then becomes how many pilots is it worth to maintain a no-fly zone? Perhaps within the first week we could cripple the Syrian air defenses in large part, but after the initial period, what would the American public think if one or two pilots were being lost every week to missile fire?
Lesser costs would be financial. A no-fly zone isn't cheap -- it requires patrols to be flown constantly over the country. It would likely require an aircraft carrier or two, as well as some Turkish airbases involved. It would require a lot of planes, a lot of pilots, and a whole lot of support staff to keep them flying.
But it could give the rebels the breathing space they need to achieve a victory on the ground. Take away the air power from Assad, and his position gets a lot weaker. If he could be overthrown quickly, then a no-fly zone might achieve the same end as it did in Libya.
Drone warfare
This is an attractive option, of course. Declare the no-fly zone and then send in the robots to enforce it. The problem with this option is that it is really only a partial option. We cannot create and enforce a no-fly zone with just drones.
Perhaps one day we will be able to, but in the present, drones have never taken on more than a limited mission -- that of stealth information-gathering and stealth bombing. Drones have never been used for air-to-air combat, or for directly taking on air defenses such as missile or radar installations. There is no "fighter pilot" drone, or at least there is none that has been publicly announced or ever used in combat.
So while this might be a way to lessen the impact of any other military options we have in the Syrian skies, by perhaps performing patrols over airfields or the rest of the country after air superiority has been won, drones all by themselves can't win that superiority in the first place. Meaning there will still be a big risk of some dead or captured pilots.
Bombing campaign
This would likely be the initial phase of any no-fly zone strategy. Airfields, planes on the ground, and anti-aircraft defenses could all be targeted and wiped out with a bombing campaign involving cruise missiles and stealth (and other) bombers. Destroying a big chunk of the Syrian military from the air would likely be the best option for the rebels on the ground, in terms of setting the scene for a dramatic turnaround on the battlefield. Continued bombing would also aid the rebels, as was done in Libya, but it would involve coordination between the rebels and the air commanders.
Again, though, such a bombing campaign -- especially in the initial phases -- would likely involve risking the death or capture of American pilots by the Syrians. Cruise missiles would help abate this, but cruise missiles aren't exactly cheap, either. And they can only hit targets which have previously been identified. Even with cruise missiles and drones, pilots' lives are still going to have to be risked, against a modern air defense system.
Assassinate Assad
America could always decide that assassination isn't such a bad idea, after all. When you think about it, we're already edging towards being in the assassination business, at least against non-state leaders. We've been fighting drone warfare for over a decade now, and if dropping a bomb on someone who isn't even aware you're in the sky above him isn't assassination, it is pretty close, by anyone's definition.
President Obama could announce he's signed a new presidential directive that assassination will now be part of the American arsenal. This could have a chilling effect on Assad, and (in the rosiest scenario) convince him that it's time to retire.
Of course, to be a credible threat, we'd either have to be bombing Syria (or have a no-fly zone in operation), or send some CIA or special forces into the country as a "hit team."
Secure the chemical and biological weapons
This one is an attractive option for pundits, until they are confronted with what it would actually mean. It's easy to suggest "secure all the chemical and biological weapons in Syria," but it's not so easy to actually do so.
In the first place, this would require at least a limited ground invasion by American troops. And that's a pretty serious ball of wax, right there. In the midst of a civil war, our troops would have as their mission to take, hold, and secure all weapons sites with chemical and biological weapons. How many troops is that going to require, and for how long? And where will their supply routes be?
In the second place, where are all those weapons? When the conflict began, American intelligence was pretty confident that they knew where all these weapons were stored -- in something like 16 sites around the country. Two years later, we have no idea where they all are, as the Syrians have been moving them around in the meantime. So the list of possible sites is now approximately the entire country.
American troops on the ground
I threw this one in there just on semantic grounds, as it is identical to either the previous option or the following option. But the phrase "boots on the ground" is beginning to bug me. All the politicians and all the media have latched onto this phrase, in order to sound more "military" in their off-the-cuff comments.
If "boots on the ground" were really an option, then we could solve the problem with one drop by a B-52 over Syria. But dropping 200,000 boots onto Syria would solve nothing, even if it did give all the Syrians underneath something to wear (those that didn't get klonked on the head by a falling boot, that is).
My point is, we're not talking about "boots," we are talking about "American troops" or "American soldiers" or "young men and women who may shed blood, lose limbs, or die for this mission." Let's not trivialize what it is we're actually advocating, in other words.
Full-scale invasion
Of course, the ultimate "troops on the ground" scenario is a full-scale invasion of Syria, followed by a full-scale occupation of Syria until a new government and military can be built up or created.
This option is, quite simply, not going to happen. We're not jumping into another Iraq. Ain't gonna happen. I merely mention it here for completeness' sake.
Do nothing, hope it all works out
This is, largely, what we've been doing for the past two years. Do nothing, and hope for the best. Give moral support to the (good kind of) rebels, denounce the (bad kind of) rebels and the Syrian government. Maybe send humanitarian aid, especially to the refugees in neighboring countries. But that's it.
This option's risk to America is intangible -- on the order of "we won't be as feared or as respected militarily as we used to be." The real risk, however, is to the Syrians. Over 70,000 of whom are already dead. Will we sit back and watch for another two years while that number hits 100,000 or 150,000 or a quarter-million? That's the price we're going to have to pay for doing nothing -- again, an intangible price to this country, but a severe price for those affected.
Ask Congress to declare war
I will conclude with what really should be an obvious choice but is no longer even considered in the realm of possibility by most analysts. If Obama really wants to see Assad gone, and if he chooses pretty much anything on this list other than "diplomacy with the Arab League" or "do nothing," then the United States of America will be involved in acts of war against the previously-legitimate government of another sovereign nation.
Even sending bullets to the rebels is, by definition, aiding one side in a war. Which, in itself, is an act of war. A no-fly zone or Americans on the ground is a direct act of war -- no hedging possible.
Well, our Constitution has a way for this to take place. There's no real rush -- Syria has been in conflict for two years now, so we can afford to wait (whatever we do) for a few more weeks or months. If President Obama (or you, in this game of "Be The Decider") truly thinks that dominating the airspace over Syria or securing the chemical and biological weapons with American soldiers is the right thing to do, then the first step should really be to go to Congress and ask them to declare war on the Assad regime in Syria.
Since pretty much every option on this list fits the international legal definition of "war," then force Congress to do their constitutional job. Let's have the debate. Let John McCain get out there are try to convince others of his stance. Let the peaceniks have their say. Let all the critics of President Obama -- left, right, and center -- duke it out in the Senate.
More importantly, let's have the American people have a voice in the debate, this time. If the hawks can't convince enough in Congress and enough of the public to support a war -- no matter how limited -- then it's going to be doomed from the start. So let's have the debate.
In modern (post-World War II) times, America has held the notion that the president, in his role as Commander In Chief, is supposed to be the "decider" as to whether the country goes to war or not. This is a mistaken belief. It is wrong. In Cold War times, it made sense to allow the president to order troops or even attacks very quickly -- either in retaliation for attacks against us, or because there is some immanent threat which can only be acted upon quickly.
Neither of these things is true in Syria. Even allowing for Obama's "game-changing" statement, there is plenty of time to have Congress approve any military actions before they are taken. So, again, let's have the debate.
The president is supposed to -- by our Constitution -- be Commander In Chief. That means he gets to direct the military, either (as previously noted) in defense of an immediate attack, or in an immanent situation. Or in a declared war. But it does not mean that the president is the one who gets to decide when America goes to war -- far from it. The framers of the Constitution put that power in Congress' hands.
I know we haven't actually used this part of the Constitution correctly since World War II. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't. I personally think that whatever option Obama chooses (other than diplomacy or doing nothing) should be laid before Congress and the entire country for debate. I think it's time to get back to having such far-reaching options like waging war actually debated in this country. So let's open the Syria debate up to everyone. Let's let the American people actually be "the deciders" on this one. What do you say?
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Bush made the word "decider" famous, when he described his job as being "Decider In Chief." His point was that, at some point, decisions must be made and the hardest and toughest decisions in America are the ones that came across his desk. Fair enough.
I am constrained to point out that the Left AND Weigantians savaged and ridiculed Bush unmercifully for that statement..
Which I thought was extremely unfair because Bush demonstrated leadership far beyond ANYTHING this country has seen since at least Ronald Reagan if not Abraham Lincoln...
Hate Bush if the Left must, but they simply cannot deny that he made the hard calls and did so with the safety and security of this country his top priority...
As far as Syria goes, Obama's BIGGEST problem is that he made such a big deal out of his red line. After the Libya (and, to a lesser extent, Egypt) fiasco, Obama had to put on the big-boy pants and show he was still relevant to world affairs. So he got all big and bossy and said, "If Syria uses chemical weapons, we're gonna kick Assad's ass!!"
Once it was established that chemical weapons had been used (more on that below) Obama went, "holy shit, NOW what do I do!!??"
The point is, this isn't about Syria. This isn't about taking action in Syria. As callous as it sounds, this isn't even about all the people that have died in Syria and all the people that WILL die in Syria..
This is about one thing and one thing only.
Will our enemies (and, more importantly, our allies) believe us when we issue an ultimatum??
THAT's the only question of relevance here..
Because, if our enemies don't believe we'll respond, this world is going to become even MORE dangerous for Americans. Obama will have tatto'ed a bullseye on every American's forehead...
And, if our allies don't believe we have the testicular fortitude to back them up, they will abandon us in droves...
That is solely and completely what Syria is about.
Now, as to the question of whether or not chemical weapons have been used??
It's not a question at all..
Military and intelligence assets in FIVE DIFFERENT COUNTRIES (US, Britain, France, Israel and Qatar) have INDEPENDENTLY verified from SEVERAL different sources that Assad has deployed and used chemical weapons..
So, there is NO QUESTION WHATSOEVER that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons against it's own citizens..
The *only* question here is, "Is Obama going to have the courage to do the right thing, even if it isn't the popular thing.."
To be honest, I doubt it. He is no Bush, after all...
CW, your DECIDER options are meat and potatoes to me!! :D But I'll have to get to them later in the day..
Michale
OK It's steak and potatoes time!! :D
First off, there really aren't any diplomatic options left.. Obama eliminated those options when he established his "Red Line". Any attempt to pursue a diplomatic option will be worse than Obama doing nothing...
So, if anyone is looking to blame Bush for this mess, you can stop looking.. It's all on Obama.. :D
NOW... Let's look at the military options..
TURKEY..
You hit the nail with this one. Turkey is VITAL, either by commission or omission (as an aside. To our resident Education expert.. Why is there only 1 'm' in omission, but commission has 2?? anyways....) to any successful Syria campaign...
If Turkey attempts to oppose any action in Syria, then the US has to decide how bad we want to take action in Syria. If we want to risk a region-wide conflict..
So, any military actions begins (and possibly ends) with Turkey.
ARMING THE REBELS
Once again, you hit the nail on the head with the problems on Arming Rebels, either light or heavy. Any weapons given to rebels will likely be used against Americans in the future. And you can imagine how bad that would be for the Obama Administration (See FAST AND FURIOUS)..
So, it's problematic to be sure..
One possible option is to put "expiration dates" on all weapons going into theater.. While it's not widely known (and even LESS widely discussed, so don't tell anyone I told ya'all! :D) we have the technology whereas with mid-range and higher-end weapons we can disable them after a set time has passed... This technology is relatively new and not widely available. The question would be can we fit enough weapons with this technology that would give the rebels any kind of fighting chance. With my understanding of the technology, I don't think we could, to be honest.. But it IS an option..
NO FLY ZONE
The entire NO FLY ZONE option would encompass the next two (Bombing & Drones) options as well, and would not be as problematic as you might think..
With advances in targeting and ground-hugging radar, we could likely take out anything that the Syrians can field any day of the week and twice on Sunday...
Cruise missiles would be the order of the day for about a week or so while we decimate Syrian air defenses. By the time the Navy is finished with Syria, Assad will be lucky to deploy a sling shot.
We will have complete air superiority..
The next three options (Assassination, Secure Chemical Weapons and Boots On The Ground) would all likely involve covert ops teams and would also be highly successful. With the exception of Israel and Britain, no country can hold a candle to US Special Forces...
I do have to comment on the irony of Obama ordering an Assassination... I have to wonder.. Would that be a "red line" for ya'all?? :D
FULL SCALE INVASION
I agree that, for political reasons, this is the unlikeliest of scenarios. Obama and Democrats simply do not have the moral courage to make that call, even if that's the only call to make..
DO NOTHING
This is the most likely outcome of this entire debacle.. And it's the WORST possible course of action...
"Failure to make a decision is a decision in itself. And it is usually the WRONG decision to make."
-Captain James T. Kirk
Obama has proven without ANY doubt that he has never met a can he didn't want to kick down the road...
A lot has been made of Obama's pivot to Asia...
How many allies in Asia are going to stand with the US when we prove to them beyond ANY doubt that we have no balls??
ASK CONGRESS TO DECLARE WAR
Wars cannot be run by committee and they should not be declared that way either..
For better (Bush) or worse (Obama) we have ONE Commander In Chief..
And there is a reason for that...
I have to admit to some surprise, CW... I would have thought that the influence and/or participation of Iran and, to a lesser extent, Russia would influence your scenarios..
Are we looking at a future commentary?? Or may I indulge myself?? :D
Michale
The timing of this could not have been any better to shed light on the difference between having a Republican and Democrat in the WH. If the former, the US would probably already be in Syria by now. Lets not forget that Syria has oil...
As for the options, none of them are great but international cooperation with the UN, Arab League and Turkey involved is almost certainly the correct way forward. The idea that the US, by itself, can continue to pick and choose which countries it wants to defend (hint: you must have oil to qualify) when they are in a state of civil war should have ended with the huge mistake that was Iraq (not to mention the many other times the US has gone it alone to arm/train people and this come back to haunt them).
The timing of this could not have been any better to shed light on the difference between having a Republican and Democrat in the WH.
Abso-frakin-loutly...
If a Republican had so emphatically established a Red Line, he would have abided by it..
With a Democrat, it must first be established what the definition of "is" is and then a testicular transfusion must be performed to make up for the lack of same in a Democrat.. :D
Michale
I have to admit to some surprise, CW... I would have thought that the influence and/or participation of Iran and, to a lesser extent, Russia would influence your scenarios..
Sorry...
Reading over that, it came out WAY too snarky... I didn't mean it that way whatsoever...
Michale
(not to mention the many other times the US has gone it alone to arm/train people and this come back to haunt them).
That had ALWAYS gone just fine and dandy until politics overrode military decisions..
AND common sense...
But, you DO have it partially correct..
The old adage If you want something done right, do it yourself is definitely apropos here...
Michale
Anyone catch Obama's presser???
How hilarious....
There have been no "firm" indications that chemical weapons have been used in Syria...
But, even if there WERE "firm" indications, the absolute "red line" has now became a vague "range of options"...
Get that?? "When" chemical weapons are used by Assad it will NOT prompt a firm action from the US, but rather Obama will sit down and discuss a range of options..
I long for the days when our POTUS had a matching balls and spine set... {{{sssiiigggghhhhh}}}
Michale
Jeezus!!
Lemme ask ya'all something..
Is there a course or class that Democrats attend to become proficient in Equivocation???
Or is it just an innate inbred talent???
Michale
Chris-
I'm sorry, but I was unable to get past the part in your article where you mentioned the "Decider" room. Amazing ... sometimes you just can't make this stuff up.
I am thinking this needs to go a step further though and become a theme park with Decider rides. Picture the Decider roller coaster where you descend through the liberal press, flip-flop over some compassionate conservatives, and loop through a couple of wars. At the end, the roller coaster simply crashes into a giant wall labelled financial crisis.
There could be a Katrina whirlpool, a "heckuva job Brownie" Brownie concession stand, and the No Child Left Behind kiddie park ... Ok, perhaps the Katrina whirlpool is a bit in bad taste.
The possibilities are endless!
-David
David,
Well, I am sure glad that we have established that you don't HATE Bush... :D
I would hate to see how bad you savage and ridicule someone that you DO hate!! :D
Michale
Well, I am sure glad that we have established that you don't HATE Bush.
Lighten up, Michale!
When someone claims he's the "decider" after making such poor decisions, it deserves ridicule.
Personally Bush seems like an ok guy. He was just out of his league when it came to being President.
-David
When someone claims he's the "decider" after making such poor decisions, it deserves ridicule.
The problem is your idea of "poor" is based on a political agenda and NOT on reality... You only look at the worst and ignore the good..
Take the Iraq War.. Is this world a better place w/o Saddam Hussein??
Of course it is...
Personally Bush seems like an ok guy. He was just out of his league when it came to being President.
And yet, he kept this country safe from terrorism at a time when it was EXTREMELY difficult and EXTREMELY unpopular to do so...
THAT is the measure of a good leader..
And, apparently, it's something that Obama is incapable of measuring up to..
FIVE terrorist scumbags have reach their domestic targets in the US under Obama..
That's a stat/fact that you simply cannot deny..
Lighten up, Michale!
Tell ya what.. I will when you will.. :D
Constantly kicking a man when he is out of the picture, when he has gone OUT of his way not to slam our current incompetent POTUS is not what I would call being "light"...
Michale
And the gold medal in the "I can dish it out but I can't take it category" goes to ...
Michale
A quick round of applause ladies and gents. :)
-David
p.s. No 9/11s have happened under Obama's watch, Obama actually got Osama bin Laden, the economy hasn't collapsed under Obama, and he hasn't taken us into any unjustified wars on a credit card.
And the gold medal in the "I can dish it out but I can't take it category" goes to ...
What do ya mean?? My bashing Obama??
Obama IS the current POTUS...
You can't compare my bashing Obama with ya'all bashing Bush..
ESPECIALLY since Bush has done the honorable thing and has gone OUT OF HIS WAY to not criticize Obama.
THAT is honorable no matter how you slice it..
No 9/11s have happened under Obama's watch,
Thanx to the policies of President Bush...
Obama actually got Osama bin Laden,
THANX to torture and other policies of President Bush...
the economy hasn't collapsed under Obama,
And it also hasn't recovered at all under Obama as well. Why don't you blame him for that??
and he hasn't taken us into any unjustified wars on a credit card.
Your definition of "unjustified" is skewed by political ideology..
Even Obama himself said that Afghanistan was the "right war"...
But I am curious...
What's your definition of "justified"...
Was it "justified" to enter WWII???
Would it be "justified" to oppose Syria in the brutal annihilation of their own people??
Michale
You can't compare my bashing Obama with ya'all bashing Bush.
Agreed.
Bush as a person seems pretty decent, I just didn't agree with his philosophy and 98% of his decisions.
While you seem to hate everything Obama.
-David
Bush has done the honorable thing and has gone OUT OF HIS WAY to not criticize Obama.
BTW- I think a more accurate statement would be "Bush has tried to disappear from the public eye until such point in time as he feels people have forgotten the financial crisis or the media has been able to blame it on Obama."
Kind of like Romney's disappearance. He'll be back, but he wants to give people enough time to forget his forgettable run for President.
-David
While you seem to hate everything Obama.
I hate everything Obama does...
Actually, even THAT isn't true because there are PLENTY of things that Obama does that I LOVE...
The difference between you and I as that ya'all refuse to give credit to Bush for ANYTHING, even though he has done plenty that he deserves the credit..
I have no such compunction on saying, "Obama done did good.."
Michale
BTW- I think a more accurate statement would be "Bush has tried to disappear from the public eye until such point in time as he feels people have forgotten the financial crisis or the media has been able to blame it on Obama."
And therein proves my point about your irrational hatred of Bush..
You take the WORST possible explanation and apply it as fact, without ANY supporting evidence whatsoever..
Michale
Further, let me ask you this..
You keep saying you think Bush is a "nice guy", a "good person"..
Would a nice guy, would a good person try...
"to disappear from the public eye until such point in time as he feels people have forgotten the financial crisis or the media has been able to blame it on Obama."
Of course not..
Michale
Cheers, Michale!
You may continue with your anti-Obama rants, but I'm ending my participation in this conversation in order to focus on something more productive.
You may continue with your anti-Obama rants,
To be perfectly frank, David, I don't think you are giving me any credit..
I have told you time and time again that, in SOME instances, I am a BIGGER fan of Obama than ya'all put together..
In other words, you are treating ME exactly like you accuse me of treating Obama..
True or false??
but I'm ending my participation in this conversation in order to focus on something more productive.
What could be more productive than defending His Great Exalted Highness Emperor Barack The First??
I mean, judging from how much ya'all do it, I figured that was Job Numero Uno around here... :D
Michale
What it all boils down to is this..
Bush may not be as good as I think..
But it's DEFINITE that he is not as bad as ya'all think...
Along those same lines, it's likely that Obama is not as bad as I think..
But it's ALSO definite that Obama is not as good as ya'all think..
And here's the rub..
*MY* opinions are based on reality and facts.. NOT political ideology.
As has been well-established, I *HAVE* no ideology. Political or otherwise....
No one here can make the same claim...
Michale....
Michale -
You kind of dodged the question.
If you were the Decider, right now, what would you do? Details, please.
-CW
David [8] -
Yeah, it does have the flavor of an amusement park ride. But then, I have to say, it is the most interesting "exhibit" I've ever seen in a presidential library, so I guess they deserve credit for at least attempting to make it user-interactive.
Not that I've ever been to a pres. library, though. Maybe there's some interesting exhibits in others...
-CW
I've ever seen in a presidential library, so I guess they deserve credit for at least attempting to make it user-interactive.
Would Obama ever let the American people second guess him and HIS decisions??
Maybe on a cold day in hell..
You kind of dodged the question.
If you were the Decider, right now, what would you do? Details, please.
Not intentionally, I assure..
Given what I know (which admittedly is not much) I would blanket the area with covert kill teams and take out as much of the Syrian leadership as I could..
Once that is accomplished, "advisors" would be on stand-by and would fill the leadership vacumn, preventing radical Islamists from gaining power...
Once everything was stabilized, I would turn over everything to the Israelis and give them free hand..
OK, that last bit was more wishful thinking than anything else.. :D
Michale
Michale [24] -
OK, so here's another question: if you were president and followed this course of action, would you be talking about it in the press while it happened?
Something to think about, eh?
Heh.
-CW
OK, so here's another question: if you were president and followed this course of action, would you be talking about it in the press while it happened?
Oh HELL NO! :D
I have said many times that, if the POTUS needs to lie to us to protect MilOps, I won't have problem 1 with that..
So, yes.. Obama MAY be paying lip service to appease his base and all that crap and I will cheer him on...
IF........
If that is, in fact, what he is doing..
But Obama has proven beyond ANY doubt that he holds American military might and American prestige in utter disdain...
So, IF he is playing the PR game to protect the military operations, *I* will support such actions wholeheartedly...
BUT....
I will also be shocked as hell if that is actually the case....
Michale