Events and developments in and concerning Syria, have continued, and has been shown to compel tense discussions and convening for decision making.
In a speech pertaining to Syria, the President communicated that a targeted strike was to achieve the objectives for deterring the use of chemical weapons and degrading Assad's capabilities. Further, such action would be toward, 'think twice' about using chemical weapons.
There were many aspects of his 15 minute speech, last Tuesday evening, tenth of September 2013, that included some refined good points.
Among the noble of these points, is keeping America an exceptional country, and doing so with humility.
There are schools of thought that couple humility, and resolve, and admirable characteristics like those, with attention to meticulous details and careful planning, planning that is assessed, revised, presented again, reassessed, revised again, while being looked at in every angle imaginable, and taken through rigorous scrutiny to make certain that anything and everything that U.S. does, meets and exceeds the highest standards in both the big picture, and the smallest dimensions.
Stated here are few that have excelled in their field:
Distinguished Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin E. Dempsey are among those skilled in military strategy.
The matter of intervention respective to Syria is being taken before Congress.
Representative Michael Pompeo, of Kansas, has an impressive spectrum of qualifications in military strategy.
From an article in the Washington Times online, at <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/8/syria-attack-high-stakes-decisions-on-capitol-hill/?page=all>, that includes views of "Rep. Mike Pompeo...The second-term Republican from Kansas":
Sunday, September 8, 2013
For Mr. Pompeo, a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, allowing Mr. Assad’s actions to go unanswered is the same as sending a green light to other U.S. enemies. He says Iran, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood are just a few that would see U.S. inaction as a permission slip. In the case of Iran, that means producing nuclear weapons.
“They pinned their entire cause for action on Assad’s chemical strikes. While I’m as troubled and terrified by the use of chemical weapons, it’s problematic to allow chemical weapons use to go unanswered. But that’s not the sole rationale, and it’s the one the president is presenting,” he said. “He is deeply conflicted about this. I’m not. I’m deeply aware of the concerns, but I’m not conflicted.”
Mr. Pompeo wrote an op-ed with Rep. Tom Cotton, Arkansas Republican and another Army veteran, in The Washington Post last week urging their colleagues to back the use of force.
“We share the concern that Obama won’t execute a proper strategic response. We worry that his action will more resemble President Bill Clinton’s ineffective response to the 1998 African embassy bombings rather than the 1999 Kosovo campaign. But Congress shouldn’t guarantee a bad outcome for our country because of fears that the president will execute an imperfect military campaign,” the two congressmen wrote.
Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/8/syria-attack-high-stakes-decisions-on-capitol-hill/?page=all
Anytime children are killed at the numbers such as 400, it is a subject of concern, priority, at an international level.
We, the United States, understand that we might not have a past viewed as perfect by all, however, we strive to progress to the next advanced degree, and continue moving upward in degrees. Prevention of mass killings of innocent is action that facilitates moving up in degree.
Still, the way which this is gone about, has to be done with equal integrity. As a general rule, the law cannot be broken, to discipline those that break the law; in some exceptions, when this principle is manipulated by law breakers, then some breach of the law might be determined that it be stretched for the better good.
Here is one area where things can appear murky:
In the simple old-fashioned method of warfare, of destroying a weapon of an enemy, take for instance this fictional elementary illustration, a scenario where the factory where the wheels of military vehicles are being produced, are targeted to be destroyed for the purpose of to undermine the enemy from being enabled to provide wheels for their vehicles. When the objective just described, of destroying the wheel factory, has been stated, and the mission conducted, it is clearly understood by all. On the other hand, if the factory that produces food for people to eat is attacked instead, and there is no motive of that attack connecting it to the statement of disabling wheel production, especially if people die in the attack, it leaves doubt and possibly criticism by others as to what the objective or objectives of the attack on the food factory are.
In the knowledge of the -- --________-- --term deleted for sensitivity concerns 9/12/13 describing constant change--, when something like an airstrike occurs, it is not known exactly what the aftermath is going to be until the aftermath shows.
The idea of 'no boots on the ground' on Syria, can be perceived as 'Utopian' in some dimensions, respective to the shifting, the variables of what could occur after an airstrike.
Based on lessons of history, will the Utopian ideal, be reality, if an airstrike was to hit?
Robert Goldenson, Ph.D., in his 'Encyclopedia of Human Behavior', published 1970, cites two concepts which application in military strategy and warfare is worthy of consideration.
Direct quoted from his book are the two entries in all capitals with the beginning of the entries immediately following:
MONOIDEISM. Obsession with a single idea and inability to think of anything else; harping on one idea.
MASOCHISM. ...But masochism is also applied in a broader sense to the satisfaction which some persons experience from imposing extreme suffering or hardship on themselves, as in martyrdom, religious flagellation, asceticism, and needless sacrifices for others.
If a country makes an airstrike upon another country, to send a message that certain acts are not approved of, such as the killing of children in combination with use of denounced chemical weapons, will the recipient of the country of the strikes, have parallel frame of mind as the country striking, referring to a message that is aimed to make a regime, as well as others, reconsider using denounced chemical weapons? What if they get struck and ignore the point of the message?
Syria has made the offer to allow international cooperation and inspection regarding chemical weapons as a mechanism that would preempt and preclude airstrikes which are to accomplish the same thing as the international cooperation and inspection. That is a peaceful means of achieving the objective, which is prevention of further use of chemical weapons.
It has already been plastered in many places online, of doubt and discrepancies that exist about whether Assad directly ordered and was responsible for the alleged sarin gas attack in question. The repercussions of the sarin incident which claimed all those lives, is being directly targeted at him. What the level of taut complexity is that Assad might be interfacing with within the Syria government construct, and the pressure he is undergoing, is tough to comment on.
Encapsulated, are the prospects of airstrikes referred to aimed at hitting chemical weapons and disabling them, or, are airstrikes going to hit somewhere in Syria to make the point about the disapproval of usage of chemical weapons? It might not be that cut-and-dried, albeit, the rising tide of concern from policy makers that are not whole-heartedly readily agreeing to air strikes, are for broadly speaking practical terms, worried that airstrikes that do not hit and in the clean disable chemical weapons with no other damage done, could possibly result in side-effects that could include eventually dragging 'boots on the ground' into the geographical region.
What is it, we, the United States is trying to do, about the Syria situation, in the sense of what forms the winners from the losers of political debate? Syria is not a subject that should be used as a forum for political debate to boost a career, of a win or loss as to airstrikes or no airstrikes. There is more to it than that, for those that truly have commendable intentions.
In the debates about whether to or not to traverse further of air-striking Syria, echoes the question, are there ways other than airstrike that make clear that there is no permission slip for anyone to use chemical weapons in lethal manner?
When it comes to the preservation of the heritage of the United States, sometimes being careful has to be done. The tragic events of September 11, 2001, was an event that affected the United States. The Benghazi events on September 11th over a decade later, exacerbated the affectations. Even though the situation in Syria, and other places, like Rwanda, are very serious, being careful applies to not allowing the affairs of another nation seep into becoming one-in-the-same with the affairs of the United States, in the aspects that are to uphold that principle.
