Adumbration

The President of The United States of America, Mr. Barack Obama, is trying hard to convince the American public, congress, and international politicians that prosecuting another war in the middle east is a good idea for peace and prosperity. 

The Washington Post reports today how he reluctantly accepts the possibility that an alternative to bombs might be possible - that being a suggestion offered by the Russians for taking control of any chemical weapons stocks in Syria:

"By the end of the day, President Obama conceded that the idea of monitoring and ultimately destroying Syria’s arsenal “could potentially be a significant breakthrough.”"

And it's not as if this stand in favor of war is unique to the Democrat establishment; I wrote over three months ago about John McCain's interest in sneaking us in to war with Syria.  He and Lindsey Graham are mentioned in the WP article in words that suggest they like waving the power of US arms as a threat (no matter how the years of US meddling in the region has brought neither peace nor stability):

"Republican Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) said the proposal came only because Assad feels the threat of military force and that Congress should continue considering Obama’s request for legislative backing. "

Obama and other members of his administration were in the full press to convince Americans that just one more war would be enough to bring peace to the middle east. National Security Advisor Susan Rice is quoted with this statement addressed to the New America Foundation:

“Failing to respond to this brazen attack could indicate that the United States is not prepared to use the full range of tools necessary to keep our nation secure .... Any president, Republican or Democrat, must have recourse to all elements of American power to design and implement our national security policy, whether diplomatic, economic or military.”

The "full range of tools"?  "all elements of American power"?  Why not nuke the region then?  that would certainly show an unhampered implementation of US national security policy.  And note the transition from justification on the basis of national security to simply "policy, whether diplomatic, economic, or military", which can and does mean anything they desire.

While the WP seems to not put much weight in the senate decision to delay a procedural vote on war authorization, simply remarking about it in passing, the USA Today casts the delay as losing momentum for Obama and his administration.

"Six senators, including five Republicans and one Democrat, announced Monday they would vote against a resolution authorizing the use of force -- a strong indication that the administration's efforts to build bipartisan support have been ineffective.  The Senate was scheduled to vote Wednesday on a procedural motion to begin formal debate on the resolution, but Reid announced late Monday the vote would be delayed in order to buy the president more time to make his case to senators and the public."

One of the frightening things about the conduct of US foreign policy, aside from the significant aspects of brazen disregard of the US constitution which has made war much easier for Presidents to initiate, is how in this instance it may turn out that the drums for war were dampened by what seems like an unplanned remark made by Secretary of State John Kerry.  The Chicago Tribune describes what sounded like a quick rejoinder to a question that allowed for the people of Syria to escape one more load of death from the sky if their rulers allowed the UN to take control over any chemical weapon stocks.  Our political masters seem to think very little about the costs of their adventures, so I can only be happy that some Russian diplomat recognized an opportunity and pushed to open it.

For this entry I'm willing to grant that Syrian President Assad authorized the use of chemical weapons against people in the region he claims to rule.  And who wouldn't agree that those deaths represent a tragedy and crime worthy of severe punishment?  The dead all had parents, many had children, many were children.  But the response of the war party is more of the same, failing to even acknowledge that the deaths in the attacks they plan in response will also include children, people with children, people with parents, people who are innocent of the crimes of their rulers.