"The amphibious transport dock ship San Antonio, seen here in April, has arrived in the Mediterranean Sea." (MC3 Lacordrick Wilson:Navy)

Air war. No-fly zone. Surgical strike. No combat troops. As the President [thankfully] caves on sending missiles into Syria without Congressional authorization, I just want to ask: what is it with all this crap about zero-casualty warfare? First of all, guns. Second of all, guns. There’s no way to win a war without boots on the ground. Worn by men carrying guns. Oh wait. The Syrian thing isn’t a war. It’s a police action. It amuses me no end to see that John Kerry, the Navy vet whose Congressional testimony excoriated America’s “police action” in Vietnam, has become the loud-talking, big stick-wielding Secretary of State charged with building a case for military action against a nation that has taken no aggressive action towards America. Where was I? Right. How about this . . .

The amphibious transport dock San Antonio, carrying elements of the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit, has joined the five Navy destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, a defense official confirmed Friday evening . . .

“No specific tasking has been received at this point,” the official said, speaking [to marinecoprstimes.com] on condition of anonymity. “The San Antonio is being kept in the sea as a prudent decision should ship capabilities be required.”

Ship capabilities? You mean Grunts with guns ready to make landfall and engage the enemy. Whomever that may be.

While I have no doubt that America should leave Syria the F alone, a policy we pursued while 100k Syrians got killed the old-fashioned way (i.e. with guns), I think it’s interesting that the Administration’s gun control gestalt extends to international foreign policy. In other words, we’ll do anything to punish the Syrians as long as it doesn’t involved [shoulder-fired] guns!

Actually, I lie. Well, Obama’s Boyz lie. ‘Cause that whole Benghazi deal had something to do with sending guns to someone involved in the Syrian civil war. And you can bet the people transferring the guns had guns too. Only those CIA dudes scarpered when things got hot, leaving our Ambassador and a couple of SpecOps guy to the wolves, right?

Am I the only one who finds the Obama Administration’s bumbling incompetence, lack of resolve and duplicity sickening? Or is all this the same as it ever was?

57 Responses to Question of the Day: Is Obama’s Foreign Policy Anti-Gun?

  1. As a 20 year navy vet it saddens me to say Secretary Kerry served in the Navy not the Army. I wish it weren’t so, cause Lurch is a sorry excuse for a human being, but I cant have the senior service sullied by that…..man.

  2. As an Army veteran, I object to having my branch of the service tarred with any association with that creep. The Army does not give out three Purple Hearts for two owies and a booboo.

    • Obama has foreign policy? The news suggests otherwise… unless “apologize to everyone and act like a (redacted) (censored) (expunged) who can’t find his butt with both hands and a Big Red Line” is a foreign policy.

  3. I think we should send Kerry’s sales tax free yacht to begin the surgical strike. Hopefully with him a the helm.

  4. no, its just plain stupid and another example of exactly the kind of thing that candidate Obama promised not to do. Lets also be sure to give the Syrians plenty of warning so they can either a) pack the sites with human shields; and/or b) move the chemical weapons somewhere else.

    Evidently he announced he would seek congressional action then went golfing. He’s checked out.

  5. Obama loves guns, as long as he’s controlling them. He’s is so disturbed by the supposed killing of 1400 Syrians with gas that he’s willing to kill 14000 Syrians with cruise missiles. He’s profoundly disturbed by the thought of a loyal American getting his hands on an M1 Garand, yet he’s willing to arm the Al-Nusra Front, the Syrian affiliate of al Qaeda.

    I think we have to face the fact that Barry is totally insane.

    Meanwhile, back in what used to be the USA, John McCain and Mitch McConnell have jumped on the Obama bandwagon. What a pair of skunks.

    Palin was right — let Allah sort it out.

    • The Senate seriously shouldn’t be 6 year terms without some kind of recall provision to make them beholden to their constituents. Without it we get people like Manchin who lie, f*** over the electorate, then fly off with their senate benefits into cushy lobbyist positions. We’ve ended up with this weird kind of wannabe nobility class because of it. Senators McCain, Graham, and King disgust me.

    • If only there was a justice system competent enough to try them all for treason, then sentence them for the appropriate punishment (usually hanging).

      Failing that, our last hope is that a few good generals get together and say “enough is enough!”. Drag the criminals from their thrones and ivory towers. Let’s hit the reset button.

    • You honor, I object!

      Skunks are the most inoffensive of creatures, minding their own business and using their formidable weapons only in defense of self.

      Those two are geese, brown-billing their führer.

  6. The president has no good choice here, only bad ones. The least awful is to stay out of the conflict. There is no organized opposition, just an umbrella group of different leaders, guerillas, terrorists and extremists. Without that you have no one to support and help take over the country should you topple Assad. Some of the opposition have committed similar war crimes and include Al Qeada linked terrorists. Should they take control thanks to US support they could grab Assads chemical weapons or simply massacre the Shiia minority they see as pro-Assad. All that assumes we’ll topple Assad, if not he can arm terrorists to attack embassies in retaliation.

    The best option is to stay out of the war.

    • And I say this as someone who would like nothing better than to see Syrian freedom fighters with American guns and air cover overthrowing a monster. The problem is that the opposition needs to be less of a basket case first.

    • No one seems to realize that even if we decided to bomb the Assad regime on behalf of…who exactly? The Al-Qaeda run rebels? Anyway. The real losers, no matter what, will be the Syrian people.

    • The President [snickers] already got involved when he secretly sent weapons to the Al’Qaeda terrorists in Syria behind the backs of the American people.

      Let’s not forget the terrorists now have 400 surface-to-air heat-seeking missiles thanks to the criminal in chief.

    • As much as I dislike Obo (and I really, really do dislike him), to reference South Park sometimes “your only choice is between a giant douche or a turd sandwich.”

      There’s no clear-cut “right” answer for Syria, just which choice between bad ‘A’ or bad ‘B’, best serves our interests.

  7. Really, cowardly Democrats whose service is disputed or maligned have no business in foreign affairs. We need a real warrior… like George W. Bush: no Viet Cong messed with Texas while he was flying a F-102 (whatever THAT was) in circles over River Oaks. Or Dick Cheney, who had other priorities than military service, and whose daughter was born 9 months and 3 days after they ended the draft deferment for married men with no children. (Must have been a busy three days!)

    A pox on both their houses. Hasn’t been anybody in DC I had any respect for in a long time except Ron Paul (whose son sold his soul to Karl Rove before he got elected) and DEMOCRAT James Webb (Union card, Navy Cross and two undisputed Purple Hearts) who ran AGAINST Cheney’s Quagmire and had sense enough to quit after one term.

    • All of our best leaders have been military men. Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter — the best of the best of the best.

      • I do recall that Eisenhower fellow, General wasn’t he? Something about his farewell address warning of the Military Industrial Complex, fortelling the future we are living right now.

        Just sayin’…

        • That’s the point. Being a military man doesn’t make someone a good President, nor a bad one. It’s more about being a man than a military man.

          FWIW, I think Ike was great.

      • And let’s not forget that much-maligned “liberal” (actually, he was more of a high plains populist) George McGovern was flying bombers over Germany day after day while Navy JAG officer Richard Nixon was, for some odd reason, running a Special Services hot dog stand in southern California.

    • So Dubya pretended to be a military man and Barry’s pretending to be our president. I don’t see the need to speak up for either.

    • I’ve been saying this right from the get-go of this whole Syria mess: if it were George W. Bush doing this, they’d drag him out of the White House and crucify him. But it’s Barack Obama, so suddenly all these liberals turn into a bunch of warhawks. Just goes to show that they don’t care about peace, saving lives, preventing mass murder, etc. They just want more power and prestige for their chosen political party.

      • Huh? What GWB are you talking about? Because the last one in office was quite enthusiastic about getting us back into the sandbox for reasons that were just as specious.

  8. Did anyone else see the irony in Donald Rumsfeld demanding due diligence prior to taking action in Syria? Perhaps that’s his way of saying “don’t do what we did when we suspected WMDs”.

    • The U.S. was about as thorough as it could be regarding Iraq. That is why so many Democrats voted for authorizing use of force in Iraq. Top-ranking members of Congress don’t get their intelligence from the White House and no such person is going to vote to take the country to war based solely on what the White House is saying. The reason you had all the major Democrats at the time on the news networks explaining why Saddam was a threat and needed to be overturned is because that is what the intelligence of the time showed.

  9. Hundreds of thousands of men, women and children were slaughtered with farm implements in Rwanda and we did nothing. What about the situation in Darfur? What’s happening in Egypt right now? Why is Syria any more of our responsibility?

    Hopefully the Marines on that scow will be bored to tears steaming in circles until they’re finally ordered home without firing a shot or gaining any nightmares.

    It’s past time that we stop wasting our young in these no win politicol messes.

  10. A president should be required to first get approval from Congress before it can launch a military strike. Congress should not give approval since this case does not directly effect the US and it can only be argued that it indirectly and marginally affects the US. The US needs to stop acting like an imperialist empire and world bully policeman.

    • “A president should be required to first get approval from Congress before it can launch a military strike.”

      Aharon, there is no “should” about it — it is law!

      • While in the ideal world that may be true, the War Powers Resolution allows all sortsa wigglin’. You know, the kind GHWB did when we invaded Panama. Or when Bonzo sent troops to Grenada.

        Facts on the ground are that Presidents can do pretty much as they please, short of ordering an attack on the Russians without consulting Congress. Once it happens, no laws have ever been determined to have been broken, and Congress always buys into the program.

        This has been going on for the last 40 years. Glad it’s finally registering, but it ain’t nothin’ new.

      • Also, the Matines may be called in like a military SWAT team without a declaration of war or Congressional permission. That’s the law as well.

    • The U.S. doesn’t act like any “imperialist empire” but it is the world policeman. The Soviet Union, which was bent on conquering everywhere, acted like an empire, which is what it was, an old-fashioned Russian empire. While the U.S. shouldn’t be entangling itself everywhere slaughters are occurring, I do not at all agree with the statement that if it doesn’t affect the U.S., we should leave it be. We should always try to help our fellow humans as best we can.

      As for being a policeman, it is the United States that underwrites global trade and global security. Its because of the United States that the European countries don’t have to spend much on defense at all. Also Japan (whom the U.S. is obligated by treaty to protect).

      • While that’s the way our politicians want us to see ourselves (and them), it isn’t supported by actual history.

        Our gov picks the ‘policing’ that it wishes to do, in order to theoretically serve the National Interest – at least as they rationalize it. Were we some sort of objective “policeman” we would have been in Rwanda to stop the slaughter of about a million people.

        We ignored it.

  11. Barry Soetoro has no foreign policy. He’s just a puppet. Window dressing. He does what he’s told. He’s being blackmailed. He’s just a queer without a birth certificate.

  12. With big O running the military I sure am glad that I’n out / retired.
    He will continue to run the U.S. Military into the ground.

    Smitty

  13. We should stay out of Syria. It has nothing to do with us. I for one am tired of us policing the world under the artificial appearance of acting humanitarian. We should pull out of the UN and stop funding that corrupt organization kick it out of NY and close our borders and work on getting our own domestic affairs in order long before Obama tries to fix the problems of other countries. He OWES that to the people of the United States!

  14. Syria is a “Lose-Lose” for The United States whether we make any symbolic attacks or not. Obama’s “foreign policy” is incompetent, eclectic and contradictory, with no long-term vision or goals. As of now it is so screwed-up he cannot establish an effective course of action, if he even got a clear, rational set of goals in mind. I think he’s going to bumble about and set-off a war in the region between the Israeli’s and Iranians (plus Allies) and we “ain’t seen nuthin’ yet”. Best to save our already weakened Military Resources for that eventuality.

  15. I think the best thing to do about Syria is for the USA, and the rest of NATO and other affiliates, to do NOTHING. It is clearly a LOSE-LOSE situation for any involvement. It is not necessarily a bad thing to concede a patch of baked desert with little-to-no oil to Russian influence. Let them play the cold war in the post-cold-war world.

    Syria is basically a proxy war between Iran (Shiite, which the Allawite sect the Syrian President is a part of) and Saudi Arabia (Wahabbi, and so are Al-Quaeda and their affiliates). Let them bleed over a land which only use is the possible path of a pipeline to the Mediterranean.

    The west shouldn’t bother with punitive strikes. Before the dust has cleared there will a claim the missiles missed and hit an orphanage, a hospital, and/or a refugee camp with massive collateral damage. Whether or not the claim is true or not (probably a few goats and a chicken), the liberal controlled western media will lap it up vilifying the “War Mongering West”.

    Currently and historically, no one kills Muslims like other Muslims. Just leave them to it.

    And just remember China is watching from the sidelines.

    • The heart of the matter,IMHO is: “Currently and historically, no one kills Muslims like other Muslims. Just leave them to it.” Well put, sir.

  16. The problem is that an irresponsible, incompetent, indecisive jerk drew a ‘line in the sand’ with America’s reputation behind it. If it isn’t backed up, our already shaky status in the world is reduced to mud. The coward Obummer could not order a strike on Syria and then go face Putin, who supports them. He has to wait until after the meeting in Russia to do anything, plus, now he can blame Congress for the results. And nobody is asking “What If?” Iran has a stake in this fight. They say that if we bomb Syria, they bomb Israel. Russia has a stake, too. How are they going to take American intervention. If Iran strikes Israel, do we back them up? What if Russia gets involved? The last five years of reductions in our military have left us unready and unable to pursue another global conflict, even if we could afford it, and even if the American people would allow it. Somebody said, “If your enemies are killing each other, let them!”

  17. Not to be too difficult, but you can win a war without putting boots on the ground.
    It’s called tactical thermonuclear war, but nobody’s had the manster’s to try it yet.
    Most likely the fallout, radioactively and politically, would be nearly unimaginable.

  18. Well hmmm. Good comments all around. I think there is a win here, and it’s staying away from Syria like it was contagious. As has been said there is nothing there for us and as for our reputation, the rest of the world gets it very well that we’re always only an election away from an about face on just about anything.

    That said, fear not the Russians, if you think our military is in bad shape they’ve had a complete financial collapse, lost all their satellite states (and access to those troop) are sort of semi surrounded by people who don’t like them and this is after the Red Army lost a war with the Afghans. I don’t think there is any way the Russians would risk war with us unless they were willing to use the literal nuclear option, and they won’t do that over Syria.

    As for the Chinese, being that they don’t have a Navy they only represent a threat in places they can march to, so I’m not even sure why they were brought up.

    The US isn’t only still the most unbelievable fighting machine the world has ever conceived, it’s still more than capable of taking on even the next two likely contenders at the same time and winning.

    The real reason to avoid conflict in Syria is that it’s pointless for us. They have nothing we want, and any likely ‘leader’ who comes from the opposition is as likely to be every bit as bad as Assad, and possibly much worse for us. If anything, we ought to prop him up, not try to arm the rebels.

    As for the question of the day, it’s a trick question; you can’t possibly call what Obama does a foreign ‘policy’ . call it a foreign caprice, a folly, a flip flop or even a foreign random, but not a policy.

  19. This is what happens when you vote for politicians based on their popular appeal rather than on their track record. What makes anyone think that a bureaucrat or party creature is capable of assessing, let alone achieving, what is needed in a military situation? No good relying on their conscience or humanity, they hand that in when they open their office door. It takes some stones to order military intervention, and there is no evidence of courage in the current leadership. A drone strike is not effective, especially as Assad has had time to put human shieds in place, and put prisoners in army bases.

    My theory is that anyone contemplating becoming a politician should immediately be sent for remedial treatment. None of them have worked hard for a living or put their lives on the line in the military.

    So what to do? It probably doesn’t matter, except it will breed another generation of terrorists to attack Americans world wide. They have lost their fear of America, and nothing you can afford to do will bring it back. Shutting up and not making impossible promises would have been the best bet. But will a politician ever do that?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *