In recent days the speculation and possible preparing for a U.S. strike on Syria over the alleged gassing of civilians has been debated. There are questions about the if/how/why/who carried out this gas attack. Being taunted in recent days by the media since the gas attack for not being serious about his vague “red line” with Syria, Barack Obama now appears to be setting up some sort of punishing strike on the government of Assad in Syria. But some ponder if he is being set-up in order to escalate the situation, not only in Syria but in the entire region.
Meanwhile, is Obama planning to hit Syria just to flex his muscle in the region, and before the world???
From The L.A. Times:
White House officials cautioned that Obama was still considering the options, but the administration appeared positioned to act quickly once he chooses a course. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said during a visit to Brunei that the Pentagon was prepared to strike targets in Syria and hinted that such a move could come within days.
Some experts said U.S. warships and submarines in the eastern Mediterranean could fire cruise missiles at Syrian targets as early as Thursday night, beginning a campaign that could last two or three nights. Obama leaves next Tuesday for a four day trip to Sweden and Russia, which strongly supports Assad’s government, for the G-20 economic summit.
One U.S. official who has been briefed on the options on Syria said he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity “just muscular enough not to get mocked” but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia.
In other words, a return to Pres. Bill Clinton’s policy of dealing with the Middle East.
But this pull-quote from the article’s sub-title says it all, I think:
“Obama, who before taking office vowed to end the foreign policies of Bush, is now wrestling with some of the same moral and legal realities.”
Hell you say…