Running Out of Options

By William L. Garvin

 

“Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.”  Shakespeare’s Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5

 

Long before the Syrian quagmire, Alexander Pope wrote that “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” His advice still stands strikingly on point as there appear to be no good options in dealing with this looming crisis.  Obviously the situation has been exacerbated by President Obama unilaterally delineating a “red line” after “leading from behind” for five years.  This is in direct opposition to his statement in accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in December, 2009:  “In a world in which threats are more diffuse and missions more complex, America cannot act alone.  America alone cannot secure the peace.”

 

Long before the Bush-Bash Brothers (Barack Obama and John Kerry) “evolved” from Democrat Doves to war drum beating Chicken Hawks, he also said:  “Iran and Syria would start changing their behavior if they started seeing that they had some incentives to do so, but right now the only incentive that exists is our president suggesting that if you do what we tell you, we may not blow you up.  My belief about the regional powers in the Middle East is that they don’t respond well to that kind of bluster.  They haven’t in the past, there’s no reason to think they will in the future.”  What’s next…Jane Fonda and Susan Sarandon performing on USO tours with Bill Maher?

 

Speaking of Hollywood and the anti-war movement that was so omnipresent and stridently vocal when George Bush was president, where are you?  Of course, President Bush only had thirty nations in his coalition, congressional approval, United Nations support and seventy percent of the nation behind him.  Ed Asner made it perfectly clear when he said:  “A lot of people don’t want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama.”  As usual in liberal lexicon, if you oppose President Obama’s policies, you’re a racist.  Yawn.

 

The problem with President Obama’s red line manifesto for Syria is manifold.  First of all, he doesn’t have a playbook.  Second of all, he doesn’t have a team.  Thirdly, his credibility is actually not on the line because after Benghazi, NSA, Fast and Furious, and the IRS, he has none!  A year after Benghazi, the only thing that this administration has accomplished is a “sealed indictment.”  I’ll bet al Qaeda is shaking in its boots.

 

As for Syria, if Assad actually used poison gas, he’s not only a war criminal, he’s an irrational war criminal.  Don’t expect rational strategies to alter irrational behavior.  On the other side, the Free Syrian Army rebel force has been greatly diminished and al Qaeda forces gaining in strength.  Who’s to say that al Qaeda affiliates didn’t gas the Free Syrian Army?  The administration says it has “high confidence” that Assad used these WMD but that is the same intelligence apparatus that repeatedly blamed Benghazi on a video!

 

As for the Syrian opposition, we see rebel leaders summarily executing Assad’s soldiers while the prisoners are face down on the ground with their hands bound.  Another commandant cuts open a fallen soldier’s chest and pulls out and eats his heart and liver.  The jihadists are also destroying Christian churches and terrorizing Christians similar to what’s happening in Egypt.  There is no telling what sort of rule these barbarians might enact if they are successful in seizing power.

 

Anti-war activist, now Secretary of State John Kerry, (who was undoubtedly against it before he was for it) now wants “limited” and “proportional” strikes that are not “war in the classical sense.”  If the military kicking Morsi out of power in Egypt is not a coup, then why not redefine these terms of language as well?  If Canada or Mexico lobbed a few missiles across the border or bombed a few of our airports, would the United States see that as “limited and proportional” or an “act of war” even if they promised “no boots on the ground”?

 

Who is to say that a “limited and proportional” strike or series of strikes will be the end game?  One can surmise that there will be many visuals of innocent women and children killed in the strikes.  What if someone uses WMD several times, a la Saddam Hussein?  Given that Iran and Russia are still supporting Assad, what if they decide to retaliate?  What if Hezbollah decides to attack Israel?  What if the world erupts, not with a whimper but a bang?  Forget the limited, proportional sound and fury; it signifies nothing.