LOL! This did not take too long. According to the WSJ, “two key Republican Senate lawmakers gave notice that despite President Barack Obama‘s pledge to seek congressional authorization for a potential military strike against Syria, they wouldn’t support a limited attack that fell short of changing the momentum on the battlefield.”
Hardly a surprise.
But this a great way to achieve a complete deadlock. If Obama wants only a “shot across the bow” attack – and remember that Kerry said that this attack “will not assume responsibility for a civil war that is already well underway” – and if the Ziocrazies in Congress will only support an attack to “change the momentum on the battlefield“, then this means that they should reject Obama’s “sissy option” and turn the page.
Should I very carefully begin to explore the possibility of maybe contemplating the option of allowing myself the risk to be slightly inclined towards a faint and minimalist form of cautious optimism?
Yeah, I guess, but not much more.
First, there is the undeniable role which human stupidity has played in history. And let’s be honest, American politicians are not exactly known for their sophistication.
Second, AIPAC can bring all these folks to heel with just the threat of being declared “soft on defense”, “un-patriotic” or – crime of crimes – not sufficiently pro-Israeli.
Third, AIPAC also has a solid chokehold on the US media which will sheepishly support whatever idiocy the Ziocrazies can cook up in their insane minds. And for those of you who live outside the USA, let me explain that in the USA TV as blaring their propaganda everywhere: not only in homes of people, but in waiting rooms, in airports, in train stations, in gyms, in stores, I mean literally everywhere. Some Americans now have multiple TV screens inside their cars to make sure that their little loved ones never miss a commercial or the latest wisdom Wolf Blitzer has to share. And in homes, you will often find multiple TV sets too, not only in the living rooms, but also in the kitchen and even in the bathroom and toilets! So a good chunk of the local population have been turned into fully remote controlled drones who will support whatever the (inevitably Zionist) talking heads on TV have to say.
But hope dies last. Let’s pray for a good old American deadlock which will grind all this nonsense about striking Syria to a full stop.
The Saker
“Should I very cautiously begin to explore the possibility of maybe contemplating the option of allowing myself the risk to be slightly inclined towards a faint and minimalist form of cautious optimism?”
one of the best sentences i have ever read…
@Anonymous: well, I know from personal experience (and history) that optimists are usually wrong. So I decided to be a tad cautious :-)
Cheers,
The Saker
The delay also means the vote will be on (give or take) the anniversary of 9/11. That is worse than a full moon for accentuating craziness.
@Anonymous: The delay also means the vote will be on (give or take) the anniversary of 9/11. That is worse than a full moon for accentuating craziness.
Oh shit, you are right! I did not think of that. Not good.
And then, they can always pull out the “2nd Hitler” and “another Holocaust – never again” argument too.
Still, I want to believe that Obama is looking for a way *out*, and not a way to make it even worse. And what has Obama done with a skill that no other President before him has every displayed? What is the one thing that Obama is really, REALLY, good at?
Yes, that’s right: at failing.
So, hopefully, he will use is quasi super-human skills at failing to fail to get the authorization from Congress. That, of course, would be the first success of his two administrations. Which, of course, would mean that to fail again he has to get a ‘yes’ from Congress.
Hegel would have had a ball analyzing the dialectics of Barak “no we can’t” Obama….
Saker, I think there is no chance Obama is simply looking for a way out. He has some incentive to create ambiguity, and he has a need to sell the war to the public. That latter is taking longer than expected, but they will manage it.
And it will not be any kind of ‘limited strike’ but an attack designed to make Al Ciada win.
There initial plan may have been to do series of small attacks, slowly degrading the Syrian army while trying to convince them each attack was the last one so as not to retaliate.
It seems they have been convinced that nobody will fall fall for that one and they would have to choose between war and no war. They are choosing war.
Obama, in order to keep his base, has always kept the pretense of reluctance and the image of trying to fight the machinery of the American state from the inside. But like all politicians, it’s just an image.
I can only hope that Syria and her allies have anticipated and prepared for this.
Nine/ eleven anniversary + ‘American patriotism’ + media war drumming = vote gets passed
The crazy republican congress won’t bear the thought of naval ships doing a U-turn, especially with all the stuff that has been stirred up with Russia. There is already talk of changing the landscape rather than limited strike. Think about it, US, UK and France, were all geared up to take action, military was on standby by, then all of a sudden Cameron messes up with the vote. US thinks WTF?!
Bully’s always work with their pals/ poodles and are never able to do things on their own (US + UK + France/ coalition). When one of the poodles (UK) unexpectedly pulls out from a job (Syria mission), the bully (US) lacks confidence to go it alone, now to save face follow he does what his poodle did, put it through a vote which he thinks he will lose coz there is no public support for it. My guess is he is trying to get out, then again who knows.
UN official Carla Del Ponte says that evidence suggests that rebels used sarin gas not Assad regime
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/
Damn my mistake. This refers to the previous chemical weapons attack in April not the latest attack in August.
Saker,
How confident are the Russians of their own radars and equipment? At least the ones they would let Syria use. Because it occured to me that if Russian equipment is perceived to have been ineffective following a US attack, it would only embolden the west to be even more aggressive vis a vis Russia in the future.
OTOH, if they are shown to be very effective, and that cost free wars for the US are a thing of the past, that would be a great positive. But there is great risk the empire will panic and do unpredictable things.
So my questions are,
1) Is there a plausible chance Syrian defenses can actually extract a toll from attacking US aircraft, and
2) How will the US respond to the loss of several aircraft. Since it clearly will NOT back down at that point.
Хочу добавить к посту уважаемого блогера новость “Сергей Лавров: Если США применят силу по отношению к Сирии, “Женева-2″ может не состояться никогда”. http://www.itar-tass.com/c303/861131.html
Это же достаточно явный ультиматум, Вам не кажется так?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2013/08/saudi-russia-putin-bandar-meeting-syria-egypt.html#ixzz2d5UVLSNv
@Lysander:How confident are the Russians of their own radars and equipment?
Very. Russian air defense systems are really the best on the market and have been so for a while. HOWEVER, this is like asking the question are you better off entering a gunfight with a brand new SIG Sauer P-220 or with a crappy Saturday Night Specials. Sure the SIG is better, but what about the shooter? What about the number of shooters? What about the element of surprise? It’s very much the same when people compare other weapon systems such as tanks or combat aircraft – a ‘straight’ purely technical comparison will really tell you little.
Oh, and numbers really matter in warfare. It’s not all about quality.
All this is to say that the only folks who will really be able to make some sense of the outcome of a US attack on Russia are military specialists. If the USAF get’s lots of aircraft shot down, this will not mean that Russian hardware is great any more than if they get few or no aircraft shown down will that prove that this crappy hardware. Remember the (then super modern) stealth F-117A shot down over Serbia in 1999? It was shot down by an *ancient* SA-3 build in the early 1960!! Did that prove that the SA-3 is so great or the F-117A so crappy?
The Western media always describes US gear as fantastic and Soviet as cheap crap. First, this is just a sign of the good old racist “we are the best – they suck” thing, and then its also good PR. The ACTUAL combat record of Western weapon systems and their Russian equivalents is pretty much on par when adjusted for factors such as numbers, attacking side, etc. As a rule, US gear tends to be more advanced technologically, Russian equivalent usually come our later, but with flaws corrected. Americans also usually get all the technology they can into a system and then design a mission, whereas Russians first design a mission and then get the cheapest possible gear to execute it. However, and countrary to Western propaganda, Russia often has the technological lead too: fist phased array radar on play, first helmet mounted sights, first thrust vecoring missiles, first tank missiles shot from the tank gun, first helicopters with ejection seats, first dual-hulled subs to reach the same quieting levels as US single-hulled submarines, etc, etc, etc, etc, When needed, they will go high-tech. But only when needed.
Anyway, coming back to Syria I will say this: the mere presence of the follwing three types of air defense systems will already force the American to completely rethink their attack strategy: the Pantsyr S-1 (SA-22), the 9K37 Buk (SA-11), the 9M311-1M Tunguska (SA-19) and the S-300 (SA-10). These, combined with a large amount of older but still decent systems (F-177A anybody?) are ALREADY providing a good deterrent: hence the fact that the Americans, Brits and even the French are now getting cold feet. Is that not *already* a success of these air defense systems?
Does that make sense to you?
Cheers,
The Saker