(OT) Syria War Justification by Obama Administration: "Our Credibility Is At Stake"

(UPDATE 9/5/2013) To preserve credibility of POTUS and by extension of the world, the US military is preparing not only Tomahawk cruise missile attacks but also intense aerial bombing by B2 (stealth bomber) and B52. See my new post.

==================

To preserve credibility, President Obama wants to bomb Syria, while backtracking on his infamous "red line" threat.

The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed the modified resolution full of holes by 10 to 7, with one Democrat voting "present".

The majority of Americans remain opposed to any military attack on Syria, and even President Obama's support base is overwhelmingly against it.

So will they do it anyway? President Obama and his Secretary of State have said so a number of times already. The US-trained and armed "Syrian rebels" are marching into Syria, according to the president himself, says UK's Telegraph (9/3/2013), "newspaper paper of record".

Why is this mad rush to attack a small country which has been already decimated in 2-year civil war, with 20% of its population as refugees? To preserve Mr. Obama's credibility?

From Policymic.com (9/4/2013):

Latest Syria War Justification is the Worst One Yet

Michael Luciano

Did you hear? Apparently, the United States needs to take military action against Syria – not because it poses an actual threat to the United States (it doesn’t), not because it’s undermining the vital interests of the United States (it isn’t), and not because a strike will topple President Bashar al-Assad (it won’t), but because the U.S. must preserve its “credibility” in the international arena.

The argument goes something like this: Last year, President Obama made an off-the-cuff remark about a “red line” in Syria, and said if Assad used chemical weapons in the country’s civil war, that would “change my equation” vis-à-vis his approach toward Syria, even though Obama never explicitly threatened military action. Now that Assad has used chemical weapons, it is incumbent on Obama to strike to make good on this earlier, vague threat.

Or as the hacktacular David Ignatius recently explained in the Washington Post,

“Using military power to maintain a nation’s credibility may sound like an antiquated idea, but it’s all too relevant in the real world we inhabit ... [Obama] needs to demonstrate that there are consequences for crossing a U.S. ‘red line.’”

Although Ignatius says that the main reason for a strike “should be restoring deterrence against the use of chemical weapons,” the fact is, the “credibility” argument pervades his thinking, just as it does Obama’s.

Here’s Obama speaking in Sweden on Wednesday:

“The international community's credibility is on the line ... And America and Congress' credibility is on the line, because (otherwise) we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.”

(Full article at the link)

It looks like Washington Post remains the cheerleader of the administration in war, despite the ownership change. (Jeff Bezos of Amazon.com owns the paper, who says "Put readers first not advertisers, don't write to impress each other.")

And here's MoveOn.org, on all-out campaign to stop the war, from Daily Caller (9/4/2013):

MoveOn.org announced its opposition to military action in Syria on Tuesday after conferring with supporters.

The left-wing organization called on supporters on Tuesday to decide the liberal advocacy group’s position on whether the U.S. should use military force to respond to reports that the Syrian government used chemical weapons.

On Wednesday, the results were in — 73 percent of MoveOn.org respondents said the outfit should oppose the congressional authorization to use military force in Syria.

“History has shown again and again that even a ‘limited’ military engagement can quickly become a slippery slope to seemingly endless war. But stopping this war is within reach,” MoveOn.org wrote in an email to supporters.

“So we need to unleash the power of our more than 8 million member community right away to make it clear to Congress that we oppose military action in Syria,” the organization said. “Congress will vote on the authorization to use military force as soon as next week, and members of Congress are making up their minds right now, so we need to act fast.”

MoveOn.org, which also opposed the war in Iraq, is encouraging its members to call their representatives and tell them to vote “no” on the use of military action in Syria.

“President Obama is proposing a military strike that raises the specter of another Iraq War—and we’re still dealing with the costs of that war today,” MoveOn.org wrote. “It’s critical that every one of MoveOn’s 8 million members pick up their phones today to let Congress know plain and simple: We oppose a military intervention in Syria.”

Republican Congressman Matt Salmon says he has received 500 calls from his constituents, and only 2 were in support of military intervention in Syria.

Senator Rand Paul says he will filibuster to stall the Senate vote on the war resolution, like he did on the Defense Appropriation Bill over the Obama administration's use of drones.

Maybe he could alert more Americans that the US government has been funding and training "Syrian rebels" who are members of Al-Qaeda affiliates and many of whom are not even Syrians.

Tweet