September 03, 2013
GOP Leadership: It's Okay to Kill 100k Innocent People, But Kill 1k with Chemical Weapons and, by Golly, You've Crossed a Line
So, we're going to war over ..... credibility? Okay, I get that credibility is actually in our national interest. But given that the current credibility gap has been created by a President who has a speak loudly but carry a small stick approach to foreign policy then I'm not sure how this helps.
Especially given that the President wants a proportional response. Striking "proportionally" has never worked. If you have enemies you kill them. You destroy them. Unless you're Grotius or a less than average IQ'd part-time Constitutional lawyer, you understand that in war proportionality is a sure recipe for losing.
The pundits keep talking about "no good options" or "just a choice of bad options" in Syria. I agree. But what kind of lunacy is it when we have a President who is given an array of bad options, and continually chooses the worst among them?
For instance, let us assume for arguments sake that military strikes against Syria are among the less bad options. Okay, now having decided to do something (won't somebody think of the children!) the President decides to ..... do the least effective something?
When you go to war, you don't pull punches. When you strike, you strike to kill. If you're not willing to go all the way, then the war isn't worth fighting. Period. End of story.
Which is just one more reason we shouldn't let this moron drag us into war.