By John Ruberry

Barack Obama’s Model United Nations style foreign policy of be-nice-to-rogue-nations-and-they’ll-be-nice-to-you is a failure.

Five years ago Syria’s thug president, Bashar al-Assad, crossed Barack Obama’s red line by using chemical weapons against his own people.

Obama did not retaliate.

Last Tuesday the brute crossed that red line–and on Thursday President Donald J. Trump fired 59 cruise missiles at the Syrian base from where those chemical weapons were launched. This happened the day after an emergency session of the UN Security Council called in response to this cruel attack predictably achieved nothing.

The spoiled fat boy who savagely rules the starving nation of North Korea, Kim Jong Un, keeps firing missiles in tests, those weapons violate numerous United Nations resolutions. For years the rogue state has been building a nuclear weapons program, one that can possibly be used to attack the United States.

Trump is responding to the aggressiveness of the Norks by dispatching an aircraft carrier to Korean waters. He’s reportedly considering deploying nuclear missiles in South Korea.

Obama did nothing of consequence in regards to the North Korean threat.

Trump understands the lessons of the playground that Obama and his fellow leftists never learned. Bullies only back down when confronted with force, or a credible threat of force. For bullies weakness is an opportunity to be exploited. The historical examples of strongmen attacking their own people and more powerful nations plundering weaker ones are so plentiful that I won’t insult the intelligence of my readers by listing them. And if you need examples, then you are too far gone, my friend.

There is some good news–America’s eight-year long vacation from reality is over.

Oh, is there any hope for the UN? No. Add me to the list of people who believe that the United States and other freedom-loving nations, such as Great Britain, Australia, Taiwan, Japan, and lets say Chile, need to band together and form a League of Democracies.

John Ruberry regularly blogs at Marathon Pundit.

Oh for one hour of (Andrew) Jackson!

Reaction to President James Buchanan message on Secession 1860

Salim:  Okay. I want 50 percent of muchentuchen chain. Phantom & Salim Muchentuchen.
Phantom:  No.
Salim:  Twenty-five percent.
Phantom:  No.
Salim:  I want yogurt shop attached to store, like food court.
Phantom: Okay.
Salim:  I get profits from store.
Phantom:  No.
Salim:  Some profits.
Phantom:  No.
Salim:  I get free yogurt when I come to store.
Phantom:  Okay. Within reason.
Salim:  And I want some of your wives.
Phantom:  How many wives you want?
Salim:  Twenty.
Phantom:  No.
Salim: I sleep with one wife.
Phantom:  No.
Salim:  She give one pee-pee touch.
Phantom:  Okay.

You don’t Mess With the Zohan 2008

A lesson in propaganda and conventional wisdom.

13 Days ago Barack Obama was going to lead the United States into Syria.  They had Crossed his red line concerning Chemical Weapons and the full power of the United States was going to teach him the error of his ways with the British by his side

11 Days ago despite decision of the British not to fight Barack Obama was going to strike Syria and nothing was going to stop it.

8 Days ago the congress was going to vote with Barack Obama to authorize force in Syria as the leaders of the GOP Conference in the House and Harry Reid in the Senate were both going in his corner.

6  Days ago the French were behind the President’s plan to strike

4 days ago the President was non-committal on if he would strike without the congress

2 days ago the president was in a position to strike if he only had the senate voting with him

Last night the president after making the case that the US (which doesn’t do pin pricks) should strike Syria asked the congress to delay their votes on that strike in favor of a deal that allows Syria’s closest ally Russia to work out a plan that will eventually be presented to the to allow international control of his chemical weapons while Assad is resupplied with  conventional arms by that same Russia

And the media is describing this as a victory for the president?

Two weeks ago a victory the president was going to avenge hundreds of people including children with the help of allies to assert the US’ moral authority that nobody can use chemical weapons to slaughter civilians without paying for it.

Today a victory for that president is Assad the person he says is responsible for that attack is resupplied to continue to fight and win his war but Obama doesn’t have to face losing a war vote in the Democrat Senate or the GOP house.

Amazing how time can change even the simplest things

Closing thought here is that Zohan clip. Watch the reaction starting at 3:07.

Is not Salim Hamdi & Nasi dance of Joy not this president and the MSM celebrating his victory over the Putin the Phantom with an incredulous public looking on?
***********************************************************

Olimometer 2.52

I’m writing this at 3 AM as I’ve just returned from DC and will have video later in the day and will post interviews with the public that attended over the course of the next week or two.

the good news is as I was frugal the entire trip including travel, batteries and food cost less than $40.

The bad news is DaTipJar hasn’t moved to cover the regular $305 paycheck let alone the additional $40 for the DC trip.

If you would like to change that consider hitting DaTipJar

.

I’m Still looking to crowdsource my radio advertising. If you want more info click this link and see how you can promote my radio show while making up to to $400 for yourself.

We’ve talked about various options in Syria. Pope Francis I has now weighed in:

He Elaborated:

“There are so many conflicts in this world which cause me great suffering and worry, but in these days my heart is deeply wounded in particular by what is happening in Syria and anguished by the dramatic developments which are looming,” the pope said, an apparent reference to the threatened airstrikes.

“I appeal strongly for peace, an appeal which arises from deep within me. How much suffering, how much devastation, how much pain has the use of arms carried in its wake in that martyred country, especially among civilians and the unarmed!”” However, the pope also said that people who use chemical weapons – as the Syrian government has been accused of doing – will face divine judgement.

Here is his tweet on the matter:

 

and didn’t mince words in his sermon

“With utmost firmness I condemn the use of chemical weapons: I tell you that those terrible images from recent days are burned into my mind and heart. There is a judgment of God and of history upon our actions which are inescapable!”

Ok he doesn’t want war, and he doesn’t want Chemical Weapons used so what’s his plan of action?

“For this reason, brothers and sisters, I have decided to call for a vigil for the whole Church,” he announced.

It will be “a day of fasting and prayer for peace in Syria, in the Middle East, and throughout world.”

The vigil will take place on Sept. 7, the vigil of the birth of Mary, Queen of Peace. Those who can will gather in St. Peter’s Square from 7 p.m. until midnight: other local Churches are requested to join in the fasting and prayer by gathering together.

So the Pope has called for Catholics worldwide to fast and pray on Sept 7th for peace in Syria. It’s a very biblical solution. Mark writes of a demon that couldn’t be driven out by Jesus’ disciples and after Jesus takes care of it they asked him.

When he entered the house, his disciples asked him in private, “Why could we not drive it out?” He said to them, “This kind can only come out through prayer.

Mark 9:28-29

I can see our secular friends guffawing. I can see the left that was happy to invoke previous calls by previous Popes for peace when George W Bush was president, saying it’s not enough. I can see Nancy Pelosi as she beats the drum for war dismiss this and I can see the MSM suddenly finding these pronouncements not as newsworthy as they might have been 10 years ago.

Fasting and prayer are of course never a bad thing but realistically can this solve Syria’s problem.   I’ll believe fasting and prayer can bringing peace to Syria when the NAACP & the KKK start having meetings.

NAACP-KKK meeting in Wyo. believed to be a first

Never forget With God all things are possible.

Via Live at Five.

Update: It’s just been confirmed that due to a logistics issue not only is the DaTechGuy on DaRadio remote at the Nashoba club Restaurant scheduled for Saturday Sept 7th postponed to Sept 14th but this week’s show is going to have to be taped Tomorrow or Friday.

By an odd coincidence this leaves me totally free on Saturday to fast and pray as the Pope requests.

This is what we in the church call a “sign”

Michael Weston:  Nando Nando Nando You’re dead.  You just don’t know it yet.

Burn Notice Things Unseen 2013

 

Monday we talked about why I oppose strikes in Syria (because it aids Islamic Rebels). Yesterday I put up a dissenting view from longtime reader and commenter Proud to serve. (It’s vital to show the use of Chemical weapons has a terrible cost)

Both points are valid so the problem is this:

How do you punish Syria for the use of Chemical Weapons while not enabling the rebels?

I’ve thought about this and as far as I can figure there are three options.

#1 The Big way

#2 The small way

#3. The Tiny Way

Let’s examine all three in order

#1. The Big Way

The United States would declare war on Syria and invade both via Israel & the Mediterranean Sea. The United States would slowly prepare an invasion force over the course of 3-6 months building up troops in the area and giving Syria the option to

1. Surrender their chemical stockpiles

2. Remove the Assad family (Perhaps a UN protectorate until free elections)

at which point we would call the whole thing off.

The advantages of such a move is clear:

1. A US invasion would assure that the chemical stockpiles would not fall into the wrong hands

2. The Al Qaeda/Islamists who wish to take over Syria would be checkmated.  Instead of being in a position to take the country they would have to fight us to get it.

3. Such an invasion would become a “kill zone” for Hamas, Hezbollah & Al Qaeda. It would be a place where our enemies would instead of striking at civilian targets would be engaged against the single most powerful military in history.

4. Given the amount of time it took to actually take Iraq out there is every possibility that Assad would take the US (even under this president) seriously and choose to give in either willingly or overthrown by his generals hoping to make a deal.

5.  Such a move would re-assert US power globally while making it extremely clear that any use of WMD would be the death knell for any two bit dictator who chooses to use them.

6.  It would not only solve the problem with killing people with chemical weapons it would stop the whole damn thing.

If your priority is US prestige and deterrent in the long run this is in fact the best way to do this but there are many arguments against.

1. The Public: The US public does not support such an action. Culturally we are not the country that liberated Europe & deterred the Soviets. The people simply do not want this war and when you go to war against the will of your people, it generally ends bad

2. The Army: I’ve talked to service personal who have told me the Army is not in a postilion to fight a war in Syria. In terms of morale our forces are dealing with massive social change while still exhausted from fights where we simply have not be able to trust the people we would be fighting for.

3. The Cost: Financially we are not in a position to pay for such a war. It would be a long term situation with even higher costs in the long term.

4. The Russians: Unlike Iraq & Afghanistan Syria is a Russian client state. It is highly unlikely that the Russians will sit still and let us take out their best ally in the area.

5.  The UN:  I suspect the UN would not be up to the task of administrating Syria until an election as they have proven to be rather feckless over recent years.

Do I think we could pull this off? Yes it’s likely but the price would be high and it wouldn’t be pretty. Even worse as has been the case for the last decade the highest costs would be paid by a tiny percentage of our population willing to make the fight.

For those worried at the very suggestion of such a thing don’t be.  The odds of this administration going with this choice are as high as me permanently replacing Rush Limbaugh on the EIB network.

2.  The small way

Rather than striking at military assets target personal assets of the dictator Assad both physical and financial.

One of the basic truths of dictators is they are pretty much interested in their own comfort and well being.  They don’t give a damn if thousands of people die including their own troops, but if they aren’t sleeping in a comfortable bed, drinking the best wines, eating the best food and dressed in their 10,000 suits that’s something they take notice in.

This is done in two ways.

1.   We publicly destroy the biggest and most prominent palace and/or residence of Assad and make it clear (both in public and through private channels) that any repeat of this behavior will result in the destruction of the next two remaining, then the next three etc until he finds himself lucky to find a Holiday Inn Express willing to put him up.

2.  We go after his foreign assets, every dollar, every assets around the world until Assad can’t afford to order a Dr. Who CD without shaking his tip jar.

Like the military option this has clear advantages:

1.  The damage is limited to the person most directly responsible for the use of WMD.

2. It doesn’t aid any of the Islamists who are trying to take over the government.

3.  It’s cost effective

4.  It puts very few if any US forces at risk

5.  It doesn’t preclude the use of the Big Way if necessary.

and like the big way it has several drawbacks

1.  It a small cost to pay for hundreds of lives.

2.  It doesn’t have a huge impact.  Going from 8 palaces to 7 or even 6 or 5 is an annoyance, not a hardship

3.  The small nature of such a strike may be used as a propaganda to suggest the lack of resolve or strength of the US by our foes worldwide.

4.  It gives the precedent of a “mulligan” on WMD.   A dictator might calculate that the loss of a palace or two is worth the price to send a message on the battlefield or worse to protestors or political opponents.  In fact such a dictator might after such a strike boast about his willingness to stand up and take strikes from the most powerful nation in history.

5.  Assad may have already converted or hidden financial assets in anticipation of this.

This is both a low risk and low reward  The deterrent value is highly dependent on the person you are dealing with.

3.  The Tiny Way

Kill Assad or put a price on his head

The US can present its evidence declare that Assad has used chemical weapons in violation of international law and declare that the policy of the US is to kill him or to reward the person who does.

As with the other methods there are advantages and disadvantages.

1.  The punishment for the offense is directed at the person who ordered it

2.  It is a life for the lives his actions cost.

3.  The sight of the dead, burned or destroyed body of Assad is something that every single dictator considering the use of Chemical or biological weapons will have in their mind when they consider giving the order.

4.  Even if you fail to kill Assad in an age of drone warfare it means that he can not show his face, sleep in the same bed or enjoy any of the perks or powers of his dictatorship.  He becomes Bin Laden without the cave

5.  It becomes almost impossible for a dictator to rule a nation while constantly in hiding.  It slowly destroys his command and control

6.  This creates a HUGE incentive to his generals to do the dirty work for us both for the financial reward and in fear that when the bomb or drone comes said general will die with him.

7.  It doesn’t reward the Islamists fighting Assad’s government.

8.  It’s the cheapest choice pricewise

And of course there are disadvantages

1.  This is a HUGE departure from international norms of acceptable behavior

2.  Once such a declaration is made the target is likely to surround themselves with human shields and the choice has to be made to kill him anyway (the right choice) or no.

3.  If the target chooses to go into hiding it may take months or years to carry out the attack.

4.  There is a real possibility that the opponents of a dictator or ruler will use chemical weapons and slaughter thousands in order to turn their opponent into a target.

***************************

All of these three choices would directly assert the principle that the use of WMD carries a price to not only Assad but any person or country who considers deploying them.  Each of them have drawbacks but empowering Islamists in the Middle East in any way shape or form is not one of them.

And I have an odd feeling that it is the reason why none of these options are acceptable to the administration.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Special Update: Some of you might wonder why you haven’t seen DaTipJar rattled on initial posts, that’s because we made our full paycheck on Sunday. However I am still looking for 24 readers who each know one business owner nationwide willing to spend $45 a week on a year worth of ads on the Radio Show & the blog. I’ve got up to $400 for such folk who can pull this off.

there are more details here. If you want more info or if you have any questions drop me a line here.

Yesterday I gave my case against action is Syria, Longtime commenter Proud 2 Serve dissents Strongly and I’m promoting his comment from yesterday:

We are losing the big picture. This is not, and should not, be about getting involved in a Syrian civil war.

This is the defining moment of our time on whether or not the world will enforce international conventions on the proliferation and use of weapons of mass destruction. This is about a tyrant who, for the first time since Saddam Hussein and the Kurds, has opened Pandora’s Box and used chemical weapons in a large attack (twice). It is also about the fact that Iran is watching; the current course has undoubtedly emboldened them in their pursuit of nuclear weapons. It is about all other two bit tyrants who now will consider the pursuit and use of WMD who may not otherwise have done so; times ten as when a neighbor pursues this path, all other neighbors have a survival interest to do so, too.

The very moment the second Sarin attack killing 1500 (half children) occurred, the US should have launched an immediate nerve gas attack of its own against a Syrian military target — specifically one where some high ranking military officials were present.

Of course, this would have been easier if we still had a national security strategy, as we did for 50 years, that advertised a chemical retaliation option. Now the world has no idea what options we may or may not use in response to an employed WMD.

Deterrence – think twice, all tyrants who wish to pursue this path. We reserve the right to retaliate in kind and the cost will be higher than you are willing to pay.

Compellence – the next time Assad, or any other official, orders such an attack, the military will have an incentive to ignore or revolt against such an order; they would know they will personally pay the price for such an attack.

I know this sounds extreme, but I argue that is only because we have lost our way. Is there any doubt that two of the greatest defenders of freedom, Harry Truman and Winston Churchill, would not have responded in a similar way above? We need return to an understanding that when our survival interests are threatened, extremely violent action is necessary and justified. In the end, the world would be safer.

Of course, we didn’t and we won’t; in five years expect the number of nations pursuing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons to increase exponentially. But at least we can tell the more volatile and deadly world how peaceful we are.

OK I agree with the principle and it is true a “tit for tat” nerve gas attack at the Syrian Military Leadership does alleviate the problem of a the Captain in the field having to choose between firing the gas shells or being shot since the commander giving the order now shares the risk. That’s a plus.

The problem remains such an attack that decimated the military leadership hands the country and the Gas supplies to Al Qaeda that has absolutely no compunction to using said gas on civilian targets not only in the middle east but in the US, not to mention that Gas attacks are by their nature subject to wind and atmospheric issues which could turn a targeted strike on the Syrian Military into a disaster full of civilian casualties.

It’s a lousy option the question is this: If we take it as read that Assad has in fact used Chemical weapons how do we create a deterrent that Assad would respect without Handing the country over to the rebels?

It’s a fair question, and there are answers some better than others but that’s a post for tomorrow.