Yet again at the G20 in Russia Obama has said he has 'high confidence' of Assad culpability in gas attack - and yet produces no evidence. I repeat, this makes no sense - the American people are against involvement, it's looking like the House is going to vote down the authorization of force - if Obama truly believes in this action he badly needs to sell it - and yet doesn't produce the evidence which might sell it. It makes no sense, and as far as I'm concerned there's only two ways to explain what's going on: Obama's an idiot stumbling incoherently into war; or he wants the House to vote down the authorization which he imagines rescuing him from current problems while allowing him to blame the GOP should another gas attack occur down the road. I just don't know how else to explain this behavior.

I have to say this constant refrain of comparing the current Syria mess to Bush and Iraq is absurd and is getting quite annoying. There is no comparison. Period. I'm not gonna pretend Bush didn't make serious mistakes viz Iraq and that looked at from a viewpoint of Iranian regional influence the invasion can be with some legitimacy viewed as completely moronic - but let's look at the facts. You had 9/11 which was only 50% successful and was still pretty bad - had it been 100% successful you would have had a ruined Pentagon, with Rumsfeld possibly dead, and either a destroyed White House or a destroyed Congress with possibly dozens of lawmakers dead - not good. That's what Bush was dealing with - and the thought that if these people got hold of chemical, biological or radiological weapons the threat to America could be existential. Okay? That's quite a remove from Syria, ain't it?

So we invade Afghanistan and that goes incredibly well - we basically take over a country with a handful of special forces guys - and then you start doing the math. We've wanted to get rid of Saddam, an invidious troublemaker, for a long time, and that included Clinton who I believe hatched two plans to that end - we have a 'new' way of war which we think can get it done expeditiously - we believe and everybody else believes he has WMDs - plus it's logical to conclude, looking at radical Islam, that the problem here is a lack of secular democracy in these bloody countries - and so the thoughts coalesce - let's get rid of Saddam, get rid of his WMDs, set up some democracy, and send a message to all the evil fuckers out there that if they're looking to screw with Uncle Sam, watch the fuck out. Easy now in hindsight to criticise it - but at the time?

Now you can with complete legitimacy fault Bush for totally botching the post hostilities dynamic - but there's no way in hell you can compare Syria to Iraq. Seen from a certain angle and understanding the context of the immediate post 9/11 times, Iraq made sense - at the time I said if you were entirely for or against the war you weren't paying attention - it was a 60/40 toss up either way - and the fact that the post hostilities environment was totally mismanaged means we can never know if the people who supported the invasion were maybe more right than wrong.

To me Iraq made one central thing clear - we in the West didn't clearly understand how significant, destabilizing and incendiary the Sunni/Shia divide was - if you could go back and do Iraq again with a complete understanding of how explosive this sectarian divide is, who knows what happens. One thing for sure, you sure as hell don't disband the largely Sunni military, probably the key mistake made in post war Iraq - that, and the rush to democracy - democracy should have been eased in and should have been explicitly secular. [although, admittedly, the last ten years have clearly demonstrated the impediments in Muslim culture regarding adoption of democracy are extremely difficult to overcome and so even a well managed and thoughtful post war plan may have failed too].

The point being that in the immediate post 9/11 world Iraq legitimately represented conceptually both a threat and an opportunity for us - Syria is manifestly neither, unless of course we make it so by turning it into the flash point of a regional war. Twenty twenty hindsight can pretend that Iraq was entirely misbegotten - but that is absolutely not true, there were legitimate arguments for and against the invasion and the fact that there was no coherent plan for the post war world has post hoc  de facto made the anti-invasion crowd seem right, but that's a less than honest appraisal.

The only way Syria even remotely approaches the argument that was Iraq is if we were planning to invade the bloody place, take it over, force secular democracy on it, and effectively say to Iran and Russia and China go and fuck yourselves - but of course that's not at all what we're talking about - what we're talking about is Obama firing off a few Tomahawks in order to repair his reputation or to prop up the delusional 'responsibility to protect' nonsense which is truly misguided in its pretensions - and that is so far removed from Iraq that attempts to compare the two should be proof of an irremediable idiocy.

In short, Iraq may have been a mistake, but seen in the context of the immediate post 9/11 world, the problem of Saddam which had been dragging on for ten years at that point, and the initial success of Afghanistan which fed illusions regarding how things might play out in Iraq, it was an understandable mistake - whereas involvement in Syria at this late date, with no clear and compelling, never mind achievable objective guiding it and no desire or interest shown at all on the part of Obama [not to mention the Joint Chiefs] for a commitment to a wider, more comprehensive involvement should it become necessary, has mistake written all over it right from the beginning.

If US conclusions on Syrian gas use are wrong, why is Kerry still emotionally advocating the 'doing of something' the way he is and why is Obama still advocating a response? These are the actions and demonstrations of people with conclusive evidence - but where is that evidence? Why has it not been made public? We know rebel factions have access to nerve agents and have used them, we know that a Russian study showed an attack in March was rebel sourced, we know that the rebel factions have good reason to want to draw the US into the war and Assad virtually no reasons to want to tempt such a thing - and we know that so far no public case has been made by the Obama administration that clearly establishes Assad as the guilty party here - so what the hell is going on? Emotional pleas from Kerry are not proof - but if Obama knows there's no compelling case to be made against Assad why on earth would he be proceeding as if there is? Is the proof classified and can't be revealed? I haven't heard that claim being made yet. We know that Obama wants nothing to do with involvement in Syria and must logically conclude that if he's getting involved it must be because he has proof of Assad being behind the attack - but why then wouldn't you make that proof public? This story just doesn't add up - either Obama is doubling down on foolishness with ever more foolishness, or someone here is playing a convoluted and devious game the purposes of which I can't piece together. I mean, this can't all be a ruse by Obama meant to trick the GOP into voting 'no' on the use of force so that he can use that vote against them can it? That'd be ridiculous. But I defy you to find some other way to explain the inconsistencies here, other than like I said Obama doubling down on his initial foolishness, which quite frankly seems hard to believe - I mean, I don't agree with the man's thinking on just about everything but he's not an idiot - yet him being an idiot is one of the few explanations that makes sense here. I dunno - I'm not a conspiracy guy - but this just doesn't add up.

Why did Obama make the absurd declaration in Sweden today that he didn't draw a red line viz Syrian WMD use, that the world did, congress did, but not him? I'm going to assume the man isn't completely delusional and actually believes in the verity and coherence of that statement - I mean, sure, extreme arrogance can often look like delusion so I guess it's conceivable he's gone bye bye, but of course common sense says it's not that and rather that there's some practical motivation behind it. Now, certainly could be simple case that he has to be able to address the 'red line problem' in some way that doesn't make him sound reckless or inept or foolish and the way he just spoke about it in Sweden is the way they've decided to go. But could it be more cynical, self serving political game playing here from Obama? The statement is so ridiculous that you wonder: he wants to lose the vote in congress on use of force and reckons that if he says some stuff that he knows is gonna piss republicans off then that increases the likelihood of a no vote. Sure, I'm reaching with that one - but I've often said and the last four years have demonstrated to a significant degree the truth of it: I don't think there's anything this guy wouldn't say or do if he thought it served his political interests. If he can manufacture some way to blame the whole Syria fiasco on the GOP house, or at the very least make them share substantial blame for it, then that's what he's gonna do. If he compromises American strategic wherewithals and reputation in the process, who cares! As long as he wins. I mean, he doesn't believe in the traditional uses of American power anyways so why would he care if he's compromising it?

Putin says he'd support action against Syria if charges against it can be proved beyond doubt - since I believe there's absolutely no way Putin would say something like that without being sure of his facts, I have to imagine that the facts that he's sure of are: there's no solid proof that can be unequivocally presented; Assad didn't do it, but possibly a rogue element did; the rebels did it or are responsible for falsifying evidence; it wasn't sarin or any other chemical banned under international treaty. I still maintain that there's no compelling tactical reason for Assad to have done this - that of course doesn't rule out him being stupid, but until I see evidence I'm going to still lean towards a rogue element, the rebels or an agent other than sarin being the most likely dispositive factors here. It reminds me of something I read yesterday by Michael Yon, who has had a lot of experience reporting from these failed states and war zones - he said it's virtually impossible to get truthful info in these places, everything is more or less corrupted by lies and propaganda - and therefore he found it highly suspicious that Kerry was assigning an exact figure to the number killed by the purported gassing, a degree of accuracy that Yon considered impossible to achieve, or that you could so quickly find evidence that wasn't tainted by something or someone.

I'm not saying there was no event - something clearly happened - but as yet there's nothing in the public domain that states clearly what that something was and who was responsible for it - and as far as I'm concerned the only way Putin says what he said is if he's convinced there's never going to emerge evidence proving what Kerry has charged.

[although you could make another argument here: that Putin has brought up the possibility of backing actions against Syria because he knows there's a chance the charges can be proven, which would mean he knows for a fact what actually did happen, and that now he's positioning himself to look like a reasonable man simply making the case for patience and in no way sanctioning the slaughtering of children etc etc]

Really? Kerry says we must act because Iran is watching? C'mon, people. If that's their case then we should have gotten involved two years ago - that would have sent a clear message to Iran - this is ridiculous - that he gets to say something so absurd in congress and no one really challenges him on it? Jesus. So the logical conclusion to be drawn here from Kerry's hollow bravado is that if we hit Assad and he intensifies his actions then we should also intensify because of, ya know, that whole message thing to Iran? We all know that's not gonna bloody well happen, Iran knows it, Assad knows it, Putin knows it, they know it cause that's what Obama has told them! This is just pathetic - these people are completely clueless. America is officially adrift. Is there no way to redo the 2012 election? But that's the frightening thing about America right now - you could redo that election and there's probably a good chance that Obama would still win.

What happens if, as seems very likely, Obama's response to Assad is merely a token effort that does no real or lasting harm to Assad's capabilities and in response he, with Iranian Republican Guard help, possibly even Russian, doubles down on the violence but with conventional weapons - in short, does more damage with a conventional attack than his purported gassing atrocity did, and thus challenges Obama to do what his timid response would clearly suggest he very much does not want to do? I have a strong inclination to believe that if Obama's response is tepid that is exactly what we'll see - if Iran decides that Obama is weak and on the run and they see it as to their advantage to drive that point home [which I'm not entirely sure it is] then expect timid action by Obama to be answered with a conventional challenge.

"... sorry, but you cannot have a forceful foreign policy, in this case as involves Syria, when you don't have as it were a forceful president to lead it... this president as a matter of core ideological conviction believes that the true best calling, least evil role for the US military in the world is to be using drones to blow up putative bad guys racing down dirty streets on motorcycles and aside from that in general to be humbly, apologetically standing back to lead UN sponsored good causes from behind... all this debate about how ambitious our Syria policy should be is beside the point because even if Obama were to step out of character and agree to something like that he's probably the last president you'd want running such an endeavor... the only version of American power that Obama and his ilk can tolerate is one tethered to the confused and enervating sympathies of the world community and the incoherent bleatings of liberal idealism... but unfortunately for us and the rest of the free world the realities of geopolitics guarantee that if you're America trouble is gonna come knocking at your door and pretending it isn't there is simply not an option..."

So, what, are there four ways for Republicans to go here with authorizing Dear Leader's use of vague force for no seeming reason at all other than to try and heal his reputation? Let's see - they can simply say yes, arguing that a no, given Obama's missteps so far, would be salt to wounds for the country, and thusly try and dump the disaster back in Obama's lap - they can say yes under certain conditions, ie Obama engages in a much more substantial thing than he's indicated he wants, like regime change and active support for would be 'moderate' rebel groups, which Obama probably refuses, which is maybe something that marginally works out for both sides, or possibly agrees to as part of political calculation typical of him, thinking that such an intervention won't work and is indeed like to make things worse and that will be final proof of how neoconservative, interventionist thinking is flawed - they can say no and use that no vote as a soapbox to hammer away at Obama's failures in much the same way Democrats did Bush over Iraq - or they can quietly, reluctantly vote no, arguing that although it will damage America's standing in the world, both as regards allies and enemies, that is a rotten state of affairs that can only really be fixed when Obama is gone because ultimately Obama's worldview and ideologically conditioned dislike of American power is at the core of this problem and until he's replaced the stench of that ideology ain't goin' away.

Hard to pick but think only real options are between one and four and at moment I'm leaning towards choice four, problematic as it will prove - and for reasons stated, the core of the problem is Obama's world view and ideological inclinations and simply modifying some bad decision he's made in what will probably end up being in a vague and limited [merely cosmetic] way won't solve the core problem and therefore how can it really heal the damage done, which would be the presumption behind choice number one? Might as well back away and leave Americans with thought that this is the misguided fool they voted for - twice. Maybe something good can come of that.

But I gotta roll it around in my head a bit more. I can see myself eventually playing it safe and going with choice one - I think choices two and three are bad and really not worth considering - it's a bad idea for congress to be making foreign policy, that's a recipe for disaster and ruinous confusion - and if Obama were foolish enough to allow interventionist types like McCain and Graham to rewrite his foreign policy, watch out, to me that would mean he's put in motion a political scheme the purpose of which will absolutely not be in the best interests of hawks or the country - or that he really just doesn't have a clue.

If one assumes Obama's red line on WMD use was drawn in a considered way [yes, it's pretty obvious it wasn't but since Obama is pretending it was we might as well play along] - if we assume the red line's legitimacy, then what follows logically is that if the red line is crossed, force will be used to punish and to dissuade further use - the presumption of force is obvious and yet Obama on several occasions has said he hasn't made a decision yet on the use of force, even though Kerry has stated the use of WMDs by Assad is a certainty - in short, Obama saying he hasn't made his mind up yet about the use of force amounts to an admission by him that the drawing of the red line was an ill-considered mistake by an inept president - and yet the press still acts as if the president is making sense when he talks.

A question: if the red line was a grotesque example of executive bumbling, we need to ask ourselves if it had never been drawn would we be considering an intervention regardless? If not, how unwise would it be to intervene simply because Obama is a fool? Can one make a convincing argument that in order to serve America's best interests repairing the damage done by Obama's foolishness is necessary? Of course, the further related complication here is that with the matter now moving to congress many lawmakers are going to be put in the very difficult position of signing off on the use of force in order to preserve America's reputation but in doing so having to put the authority of this use of force into the hands of an executive that is manifestly incompetent when it comes to matters of foreign policy and has dumped this choice on congress for no other reason than to spread around blame for what is to come.

[and there's a further abuse of logic at work here - you have an American president who clearly distrusts, dislikes or possibly secretly feels outright contempt for American power - that's how the leftist intellectual elite that spawned Obama thinks and that is the obvious conclusion to be drawn from Obama's actions as president - so you have an executive who clearly is uncomfortable with American power threatening the evil doers of the world with the harsh retribution of that august power should they misbehave - it's absurd, it makes no sense, yet again the press acts as if it does. Liberal thought, given it's abstract idealism, is in essence incoherent and Obama is a near perfect manifestation of that reality]