Assad is evil. To stop him from using poison gas, Obama drew a red line in the sand, and said we would attack if he used it. Well, he used it and Congress voted to not attack. In their mind the attack would only bring chaos without resolution. That sounds reasonable to me.
We have very little power in the Middle East and most of our efforts have been abysmal failures that cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives.
In the September 23, 2013 issue of Time, Joe Klein made a very good point. When Israel took out the Syrian nuclear reactor, they did it without advance bluster and didn’t even claim credit for it afterward.
Vince Flynn, the creator of CIA agent Mitch Rapp, has the answer. When our country’s in trouble, Mitch can infiltrate anywhere he wants (he speaks fluent Arabic) and kill the bad guys. He could have single-handedly solved the problem. But, since Mitch refused to leave the safety of the printed page, it was up to President Obama to come up with a viable plan.
What happened was that the president’s openness, which is always welcome in a psychiatrist’s office, was not so helpful on the world stage. It’s humiliating to confront a bully and then have to back down.
To have the most powerful military in the world at your disposal, and yet be unable to fix a decades old problem embedded in the fabric of middle eastern culture, has to be terribly frustrating. If we knock out Assad, what brand of fanaticism will take his place? How interesting that the Saudi’s, another right-wing religious monarchy, was calling for an attack on Assad, but they didn’t lift a Sunni finger…
We’re dealing with murderers and fanatics and there has to be a better way to deal with them then by waiting, in view of the entire world, for congress to openly vote on what to do. The logic is ridiculously illogical.