« The logic of libertarian amnesty | Main | Left Loses Big in Citizenship-Verification Supreme Court Case »

June 17, 2013

On Syria: Comment of the Week by John Fleming [Bumped]

Can anyone name even one constitutional purpose
of American foreign policy that is being satisfied by an intervention into the Syrian pesthole? Did We the People grant our Powers and wealth to our government so that they could succor the grinding misery that foreigners, hoisted by their own deluded petard, have put themselves into? We never did. The powers We the People granted to our government were to be used for the benefit of Us, only us, and not some Levantines forever in thrall to both secular and religious tyranny.

Syria can live, can die, be glassed, anything, and it won't make one single bit of difference to the United States. i'm sorry all you Syrian people, but in the calculus of the United States your value is zero; and to even mess with you brings nothing but your misery and delusion to our shores. Be off with you, and save yourselves!

If the Usurper does this, and our Armed Forces professional officers do not resist this to the last man, then I will know we are well and truly f'ed. Who will be left to defend us against our enemies foreign and domestic? If the Usurper does this, It will be clear, that his aim is to destroy our Armed Forces. May God have mercy on us, because we don't have His Blessings anymore." Commenting on There's A Storm Coming: Syria. Because Afghanistan Just Isn't Enough @ AMERICAN DIGEST

Posted by gerardvanderleun at June 17, 2013 5:45 PM. This is an entry on the sideblog of American Digest: Check it out.

Your Say

My son and his A-team are headed back to Afghanistan soon, his fifth tour. These men are being ground into raw meat for no Constitutional purpose. The Usurper will set the world on fire before hie's finished.

Posted by: twolaneflash at June 14, 2013 8:16 PM

There is some purpose to AFG. There was greater purpose to Iraq. The only purpose to Syria is to bump the scandals off the front page. It's his Bosnia. He wants to see if he can wag it like Willie.

Posted by: Casca at June 14, 2013 8:50 PM

It is sad, but the truth is, Syria can burn without our intervention. Its just nothing we should be involved with, much like Libya.

There WAS purpose and constitutional basis for Afghanistan - we were attacked. But not any more, its just a waste of time now. Its a failure, because of idiot policies and treason.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 14, 2013 9:19 PM

I agree with you assessment 100%.

Bring our treasured men and women home to protect US boarders.

NO to Syria and the maniacs McLame & Flaming Lindsey from SC. Send these Senate war mongers 1st, let them face violent jihad and die in the hell 0 has created.

No more blood for the corrupt blood thirsty world government agenda

Posted by: Arlie at June 14, 2013 9:36 PM

Relax:

http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/06/14/why_obama_is_arming_syrias_rebels_its_the_realism_stupid

"this is simply the next iteration of the unspoken, brutally realpolitik policy towards Syria that's been going on for the past two years. To recap, the goal of that policy is to ensnare Iran and Hezbollah into a protracted, resource-draining civil war, with as minimal costs as possible. This is exactly what the last two years have accomplished.... at an appalling toll in lives lost.

"This policy doesn't require any course correction... so long as rebels are holding their own or winning. A faltering Assad simply forces Iran et al into doubling down and committing even more resources. A faltering rebel movement, on the other hand, does require some external support, lest the Iranians actually win the conflict. In a related matter, arming the rebels also prevents relations with U.S. allies in the region from fraying any further.

"So is this the first step towards another U.S.-led war in the region? No. Everything in that Times story, and everything this administration has said and done for the past two years, screams deep reluctance over intervention. Arming the rebels is not the same thing as a no-fly zone or any kind of ground intervention. This is simply the United States engaging in its own form of asymmetric warfare. For the low, low price of aiding and arming the rebels, the U.S. preoccupies all of its adversaries in the Middle East.

"The moment that U.S. armed forces would be required to sustain the balance, the costs of this policy go up dramatically, far outweighing the benefits. So I suspect the Obama administration will continue to pursue all measures short of committing U.S. forces in any way in order to sustain the rebels."

Posted by: Fat Man at June 14, 2013 10:21 PM

Drezner says this is our (the Usurper's mediocrities) way of constraining the mullah's. What power did we grant our government to foment, fund, and sustain a foreign civil war and the slaughter of civilians? Instead of preparing a real defense (a credible counter-threat) against the mad mullahs? It is curious is it not, that the Usurper, with his only prior foreign policy experience being a Soviet stooge for a Pershing-Free Europe, is so anxious to draw down our nukes, while remaining passively unconcerned about the mullahs. These mad mullahs who, alone among all nations, proclaim that as soon as they have them, they will use them in service to their religion.

It is also a tell, that a man that once was so quick to condemn the evility of the USA for its misadventures in the Phillippines, Asia, Haiti, is now so unconcerned about killing foreigners.

Drezner is too close to it, he assumes facts not in evidence, that the Usurper and his minions actually know what they are doing, and are doing their sworn duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. Exhibit A: Libya..

Posted by: John A. Fleming at June 15, 2013 2:49 AM

What? What?

Four words, in whatever order floats your boat.

Self-defense.

National Security.

Need I say - need we think - anything more?

I think . . .

Not.

Posted by: Everyman at June 15, 2013 8:50 AM

Drezner's analysis sounds more like trying to take credit for what's happening than an explanation of what actually took place. This administration's foreign policy hasn't shown any consistent theme or plan whatsoever.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 15, 2013 9:07 AM

What? Self-defense? As long as the Syrians stay there, and we stay here, they are no threat to us.

What? National Security? Ever heard of Sun Tzu? Make it understood that we would live in peace with you. But if you mess with us (and our friends), your surviving descendants (if any) to the last generation will curse the sound of your name. Walk and talk softly and carry a big stick.

Forget about it. The Usurper and his apparatchiks are cunning idiots, who believe that they are unbound from any law, and the 'Constitution is an antique to be ignored when possible, and subverted as necessary.

Posted by: John A. Fleming at June 15, 2013 10:48 AM

Just for the record for other readers, I am a retired US Army artillery officer. My eldest son fought in Iraq in the Marine Corps. My second son is an officer in the USAF Reserve while he completes medical school, upon which he will be commissioned a captain in the regular Air Force's medical corps.

Both my father and my father in law are World War Two veterans. I was named after Lt. Col. Donald Sensing, a veteran of both World Wars One and Two, also, coincidentally, an artilleryman.

Now that I have got my bona fides out of the way, I have in the last couple of weeks come to realize that I cannot counsel any young man or woman to enter the armed forces of the United States. You cannot with integrity take either the oath of enlistment or the oath of commissioning because there is no Constitution left to defend. It's gone. Constitutional government is gone.

And so the armed forces have become props of the regime, shoring up its usurpation. We are well en route to a point where to be a soldier is to be a partner in despotism. If our current path is not checked (and I am 90 percent certain it won't be) then to wear a uniform of the armed forces will be to don the clothing of an enemy of the ideals and vision this country was founded on.

I say now that the Left has finally got what it wanted all along, let the decreasing numbers of the their children fight abroad in illegal wars for it. Any parents who love what this country was founded to be is now bound by patriotism to inhibit their children from enlisting. And their children must understand that they are neither defending nor fighting for what the colonial army bled for; they are dupes, tools and fodder for the Marxist Left's totalism, mere materiel for the ongoing subjection and repression of a once-free people.

The blood and agonies of America's remaining liberty lovers must no longer be squandered. I call for boycotting enlistment offices around the country. Let the Left fight its own wars.

Posted by: Donald Sensing at June 15, 2013 10:58 AM

John Fleming: "What power did we grant our government to foment, fund, and sustain a foreign civil war and the slaughter of civilians?"

Art II Sec 2 of the Constitution gives the President the power to:

"to make Treaties, ... and ... appoint Ambassadors,".

This has always been viewed as plenary power over the conduct of foreign affairs, i.e., the relationship of the United States as a unitary sovereign with the other sovereigns of the world and their subjects and citizens.

It is a fact that the conduct of those relationships has always required conduct, that would, in private individuals, be rightly condemned as immoral. But, those actions have been undertaken by sovereigns since the most ancient of times. I have no doubt that the Romans spent money and effort fomenting, funding, and sustaining foreign civil wars and the slaughter of civilians among their neighboring kingdoms.

This being the case, the President, even the odious Hussein, has the power to do those things.

Not every bad idea is unconstitutional. I take no position on whether our Syria policy is a good idea or not. I simply don't know enough. I do note that the Israelis have been very quiet on the subject.

Whether or not Drezner is correct is also beyond my ability to say. But, he does have a plausible story to tell.

Posted by: Fat Man at June 15, 2013 11:14 AM

I've heard the "we have to spend money to do diplomacy so that means we can send billions in foreign aid to nations" argument before, and it lacks credibility in my mind.

But even if there was the slightest shred of validity to that argument, we don't have the cash to spare now and should end it, end it all at least until we're out of debt.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at June 15, 2013 2:51 PM

Appoint ambassadors and make treaties so that we Americans could freely trade with other nations. We are not the world's policeman. We do not want to be a hegemon. We just want free trade. I'm taking the idealist position. If there is one nation that should not engage in "brutal realpolitik", it's us. We are better than Rome.

We the People are the Sovereign in the USA. Our temporary agent The Usurper is constrained by our Constitution to wield these powers to promote peace and free trade, not to transform the world to more his liking.

Syria has only two valuable things: the navy base at Tartus (for Russia since forever), and a border with Israel (including its vassal Lebanon) (for Iran).

There is no advantage to commerce for us to mess with Syria. And why prick the Russian bear? And Iran keeps its access to Israel's border regardless of who wins.

There is nothing of value for us in Syria. It is not even a front in the "winning their hearts and minds" war of Islam against us. The Usurper's fantastic speeches are not an executable foreign policy. The Islamics of Syria will hate us no matter what we do (and that is brutal realpolitik).

Walk away. Syria is a vassal of Russia and Iran. To spend our treasure in Syria brings only damage to the United States.

If our beef is with Iran, then let's make it clear to Iran that we will not allow them to restrict trade or attack our friends. We've got no business fomenting proxy civil war. Or even worse, intervening directly, risking a three-way with Russia and Iran.

Posted by: John A. Fleming at June 16, 2013 2:36 AM

Read on DEBKAfile yesterday that Putin intends in spite of Israel's objections and a UN "rule" against members with veto power acting as UN "peacekeepers" to deploy a brigade to the Golan Heights - as peacekeepers. Also read that Iran is sending 4000 more military personnel to support Assad.

Why is Israel quiet on this? Maybe they adopt Drezner's line. If it were me and I could take small covert steps to cause declared enemies to kill each other I'd do it. If I remember my Sun Tzu that would be his counsel also. But I have zero confidence in this executive to do anything right.

Its a long tortuous path to Armageddon but the current events seem heading in that direction. I don't know what to think of prophesy but suspect that it is self fulfilling. A spirit (zeitgeist) takes on the form and feeds off people's belief and fear and dread and loathing. Events form a cascade with these and eventually, BOOM!

Posted by: John Hinds at June 16, 2013 3:18 PM

The excellent Lefty Chris Floyd is back after a month off


"Something very, very bad happened over the weekend.

President Obama made Digby sigh."

http://chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2325-absolving-obama-or-the-lamentable-sigh-of-the-depressed-progressive.html#disqus_thread

Posted by: Anonymous at June 17, 2013 2:58 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)