I thought that President Obama would order an air strike on Syria as soon as this Labor Day weekend, but as I completed the first draft of this article, President Obama surprised me and announced that he would seek congressional approval before he ordered a strike on Syria. I previously was thinking that Obama would just ignore the Constitution and the Wars Powers Act and just go it alone against President Basher Assad of Syria and that is the reason for my “Obama plays one-on-one with Assad but loses control of backboard” title.
Now I just read that Obama said he will go one-on-one with Assad even if Congress votes against an attack. If Congress voted against an attack and Obama carried out the attack anyway, that would be unconstitutional. I cannot think of a better way for Obama to get himself impeached if his strike action drags us into an unpopular wider war. When George Bush was in power even Joe Biden said that he would start impeachment legislation if Bush did not get Congressional approval before bombing Iraq. Maybe crazy Joe would even vote against Obama in any Senate removal tie breaker to make himself become President. I would not put it past him.
Obama, quoting Intelligence sources, made what looks to be a fairly strong case that the Assad forces in Syria used chemical weapons. I do tend to believe the Intelligence sources they used, but with an administration full of documented lairs it often becomes difficult to believe anything they tell us. And what are they not telling us?
Even though Intelligence believes they know what happened, you might keep in mind that Intelligence has often been wrong. Some of that error takes place just because of human nature. For example, if I worked for an employer who gets his income from those pushing global warming, I am not likely to deliver information to my boss that debunks global warming if I really wish to keep my job. Much the same takes place in the Intelligence Community. The higher powers tell the analysts what they are looking for and the analysts try to deliver what the higher powers want to hear or otherwise they will never advance their career. If I know the higher powers are working to remove Assad, I probably am going to look long and hard for activities and information that supports that agenda.
On the surface, from what was reported from the Intelligence sources it sounds like a slam dunk, the Assad forces did use Sarin gas. However, what I don’t understand is why Bashar Assad or his brother would order a Sarin gas attack? President Assad is clearly winning the war, so using weapons of mass destruction that they certainly know would bring international outrage and foreign intervention just does not seem logical. The intelligence report says that they intercepted a communication where a high level Assad official was heard questioning the attack, so it just could be that Assad had lost control of one or more of his officers at that weapons site. Why might that be and who may have been behind it?
Further, why would Assad put his neck in a noose so he could be tried at the Hague as a war criminal when he is winning the revolution using conventional weapons? There appears to be no strategic reason for Assad’s military to use Sarin gas against the civilian population center where it was said to happen. What would Assad strategically gain by gassing thousands of civilians? And it was just all too convenient that weapons experts from the U.N. were in the country and nearby at the time of the gassing. It seems to me that somebody wanted there to be a lot of deaths by nerve gas while the inspectors were around. In other words, this has all the makings of a conspiracy to frame Assad. Therefore, it is my view that Assad did not order this attack, so what good will it do to just punish him like Obama plans?
With these things in mind, the most logical questions that we should be asking ourselves might be: Could the gassing have been done by a rogue commander within Assad’s forces that was a double agent for someone else? Could the gas release also have been the result of an accident? For example, there have been reports that Sarin gas was being supplied to Al Qaeda fighters from Saudi Arabia. If that is true, it is very likely that these terrorists were not trained to properly handle this nerve agent or were careless. One or more rebels might also have deliberately released all or most of the gas even though our Intelligence has been led to believe otherwise.
If the accidental or deliberate release of the nerve gas by Al Qaeda was true, then how do we explain the activity at the weapons site? The same reports said they were doing these nerve agent loading activities quite often. Even if the military is not intending to use such weapons, they would have many live drills to stay proficient. Who tipped our Intelligence and made everything that was taking place at that site in the prior three days before the gassing a point of interest anyway?
If President Assad ordering a nerve agent attack really does not add up, then we might ask ourselves who would benefit by foreign intervention into Syria and/or a wider war that a flagrant nerve gas attack would bring? Obviously Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other Sunni fighters against Assad would benefit from such intervention and they have even asked for foreign intervention. However, who is behind these Sunni fighters and who is capable of supplying the gas and/or could create the fabrication that Assad ordered the attack? One likely answer is Saudi Arabia, they have the will and the means and they know a lot about how Western Intelligence operates.
Keep in mind, that our own CIA agents or Israeli agents might have the ability to infiltrate Assad’s forces and/or could carry off such a fabrication but I certainly am not saying that either did. On the other hand, I do not trust the Saudi’s. They obviously are working very hard and spending a lot of money to remove Assad.
We soon forget that the Al Qaeda agents that pulled off the 9/11 attack on the U.S. were mostly Saudi nationals. Al Qaeda is a more militaristic offspring of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Sunni Muslims are now at war with the Shiite Muslims and Syria is the kingpin. The Iranian led Shiite would have control from Iran to the Mediterranean Sea if Shiite supported Assad retains control over the majority Sunni of Syria. Saudi Arabia has no intention of letting that happen. That is what this war in Syria is now really all about.
Those fighting in Syria are now mostly Saudi supported Sunni mercenaries and terrorists, they are fighting against Assad’s military, Shiite Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon, and Shiite Iranians. The fighting has even spread into Iraq and other smaller Middle Eastern states. This is already an undeclared regional war for domination of the Fertile Crescent.
Sunni Turkey also wants Assad overthrown. I do not think the Turks had anything to do with the gas, but they clearly want U.S. intervention. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President Obama are close friends. I think Turkey and the Saudis are influencing Obama to order military action against Syria. Erdogan of Turkey just said that the limited attack that Obama telegraphed does not go nearly far enough. He wants Assad removed. Maybe that is one reason for the sudden change of mind by Obama and the delay. For a stronger response, Obama would need more time to get more forces in the area. Support and funding by Congress would certainly help as well. Some in the Senate are already calling for an attack plan that will remove Assad.
The recent leaked talks between Saudi Prince Bandar and President Putin of Russia is also very revealing. Apparently Saudi Arabia tried to get Russia to dump Assad by offering Putin an alliance with the OPEC cartel, safeguarding Russia’s naval base in Syria, and by promising Russia protection from Chechen violence during the Russian Winter Olympics. The Prince indicated the Chechen terrorists were under their control and implied that there would be terrorist attacks at the winter games if Putin’s support for Assad continued.
Apparently Putin turned down the deal and was enraged by the implied threats by the Saudi’s. This alleged dialogue between Prince Bandar and President Putin, if true, shows just how far the Saudi’s would go to get rid of Assad. There now are now reports that Putin said that Saudi Arabia will be attacked by Russia if Syria is attacked. I cannot verify that the sources for that information are reliable, but you can find this all over the Internet if you do the appropriate keyword search.
I also find it interesting that Saudi Arabia even believes that it has the power to safeguard the Russian base in Syria. Apparently, from what was reported, Prince Bandar believes that Saudi Arabia controls Sunni terrorists. It seems that our Saudi “friend” in the gulf controls the Sunni terrorists that war against Israel, Christianity and the West.
Another dark horse for the gas attack could be Iran. The Shiite cult leaders running Iran just said they expect their Mahdi to come after a wider war spreads from Syria. They could be trying to help that wider war along.
Anyway, the real deals between leaders and nations are often not told to the public. For this reason, diplomatic meetings are almost always done in secret. They are secret for a reason. If the people knew what was really going on behind the scenes they would revolt. The Egyptian military became aware of what the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood leader was doing and planning for Egypt and you saw what happened there. There is always more going on than meets the eye. You might also keep in mind that there are high level connections between Obama and Muslim Brotherhood Jihadists. Who really controls Obama and how does that relate to the coming attack on Syria?
At this point, Obama does not have much support for any Syrian attack and that may be another reason why he moved his ball into the Congressional court. Even after hearing the Intelligence report that fingered Assad forces for the gassing, the majority in the U.S. are still against America taking any military action against Syria. The U.N. is not going to authorize military action because Russia and China will veto it. The British Prime Minister was for a strike on Syria but was overruled by their Parliament. The President of France is still supporting military action but two-thirds of the people in France are against it. So how long will French support last?
Maybe Obama should learn that he should not be drawing red foul lines in the sands of the Middle East. Obama might think that he can play one-on-one with Assad but Assad has quite a reach. Obama will not control the backboard. After he lobs all his sky balls he will have to move in aggressively if he wants to have any victory. However, I just can’t see Obama muscling Assad at the backboard. If things get tough on the court Obama might just take his ball and go home – worse, our enemies believe that he will.
Obama says we must attack Syria because we are the leader of the world. Yet, at the same time he is doing everything he can to weaken our military so that we cannot be the leader of the world. You can’t have it both ways. You cannot disarm your law enforcement and then be the Sheriff of the world.
According to Obama, it is up to America to punish Assad and the way to do that is by shooting some cruise missiles at Syria? Even our military does not think that Obama’s lob and retreat strategy is very wise. A few hundred missile strikes is not going to change one thing with Assad, but if Assad retaliated it could start World War III. It seems that Obama thinks if he slaps Assad just hard enough, but not too hard, that Assad will be a good boy and will not use chemical weapons again and will not retaliate either. That is one hell of a bet! What if Assad attacks Israel, Jordan or Turkey in response?
Besides, our leaders already know from the phone communications questioning the attack that Assad did not order this attack, yet they think Assad has enough control over any future attack that punishing him will achieve their objective. That simply is not logical.
What if Iran attacks nations in defense of Syria. They say they will. What if Russia actually does carry out the reported threat on Saudi Arabia? Are we ready for all the possible contingencies and the possible fallout after the attack with all our military downsizing? There seems to be no end for our leaders to find new wars to fight.
Even if Assad takes our initial attack and does not attack others, that does not mean that he will not find some asymmetrical warfare method for pay back somewhere down the line. For example, do we know for sure that Syria and Iran could not carry out a cyber warfare attack that could cripple our infrastructure? How secure are our ships from sea skimming cruse missiles when they are least expecting them?
Do we know that we can keep the shipping lanes open without a major war against Iran? Is our economy sound enough for $15 gas and 100 percent inflation? It seems to me that just slapping the face of someone backed by Iran, Hezbollah, Russia and China is insane if you are not prepared for the fight. Why even play Russian roulette if nobody has a gun to your head? We really could just let the Sunnis fight their own battles, we do send them plenty of money and weapons, so why do we also have to fight their wars for them?
As for the WMD in Syria, if the world does not want Syria to have WMD then the world ought to do something about it. Policing the world is no longer in our job description. We abdicated that responsibility after World War II when we allowed other nations to develop WMD and set up the United Nations to deal with international disputes and weapons proliferation. We even set up NATO to protect Europe and the North Atlantic from future threats. If Assad’s WMD are a threat to Europe, get all NATO nations involved and not just have America deal with the threat.
If Assad is replaced, the WMD are still going to stay in Syria. The world is not going to control all these weapons from getting into the hands of the radicals without putting a lot of boots on the ground. It will take about 50,000 boots on the ground for years just to secure and destroy all the WMD in Syria. If NATO is not willing to pay that price, then they can blame themselves for the consequences.
A slap in the face is only going to enrage Assad and make him do something irrational. If we want to get rid of Assad, and also control those WMD, NATO should pay the price to remove them, but the price is far more than a few hundred cruse missiles. And the real threat in the area is not Assad, it is Iran. Iran is much more of a direct threat to Europe and our own nation than is Assad of Syria. Maybe we ought to save those cruise missiles for real threats to our own nation instead of just wasting them on empty buildings in Syria that very well could start America’s next war.
Is the reason for the proposed attack really about the use of nerve gas or is the gas just the excuse to support the Sunni Muslims fighting against the Shiite Muslims? Does it even matter? If we attack Syria we will be getting America involved on the side of the Sunni Muslims in either case. Why does Obama want to take us into a fight between two sects of Islam? Some think Obama was given to America to bring about her destruction. No kidding.
All comments to my posts are monitored before posting. Please read comment policy (top bar) and especially stay on topic if you expect your comment to be posted
Don Koenig founded www.thepropheticyears.com website in 1999 after almost thirty years of independent study on the Bible and learning from many astute teachers within Christendom. Don created his website to write about Bible prophecy, biblical discernment and his Christian worldviews. Don wrote a free Revelation commentary ebook in 2004 named "The Revelation of Jesus Christ Through The Ages". The World and Church and Bible Prophecy section of this website was started in 2007.