It Depends On What The Meaning Of The Term “Limited Strikes” Is

Guest posted by Andrea Shea King, The Radio Patriot. Twitter @RadioPatriot

Does anyone believe in such a scenario, bearing in mind the heavy hand we saw in Watertown, that a broadly-imposed martial law situation would leave gun owners unmolested?”

2013-04-19t125801z_1_cbre93i100v00_rtroptp_2_usa-explosions-boston

Gun Rights activist David Codrea, who along with Mike Vanderbeogh of Sipsey Street Irregulars broke the Obama Administration’s “Fast and Furious” Mexican gun running scandal, penned a piece over the weekend that’s getting a lot of attention. Headlined, “Gun owners have vested interest in opposing U.S. Syrian intervention”, Codrea imagines the domestic scenario if the nation turns on President Obama regarding the Syrian crisis:

As the administration beats the war drums and works on a plan to share the blame by growing domestic and international support for the initiation of military force against Syria, the focus of those reporting on developments, and thus, those they are reporting them to, has been on everything but the likelihood of retaliation on American soil. Ditto for the government’s likely domestic response should that happen.

Noting how two pressure cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon put large swaths of the city under what was effectively martial law, with innocent citizens being rousted from their homes by the equivalent of an occupation army, it’s not hard to envision a similar reaction an order of magnitude larger.

lock3

Obama would have us believe that strikes can be limited, not to decapitate the Syrian regime, but to degrade its capabilities. The corollary to that is, he would have us believe any reaction to that will be limited and contained. The thing is, if you start throwing punches, you don’t get to define how the other side will respond. It stops being your call to determine how limited the push-back will be. Especially if the guy starting the fight is picking it with more than one adversary and his true target is no pushover.

So what we see in preliminary responses to all the president’s face-saving noise is Iran threatening to rain down death on Israel and to attack regional U.S. interests. We see anti-Assad factions, who presumably should welcome U.S. intervention, envisioning their fighters invading and burning Washington, D.C. We see evidence of plans for jihadists to exploit the “soft belly” Mexican border and spread out to wherever they wish to strike for maximum effect, including psychological. And we see Russia allying its resources with the regime Obama wants to attack.

Read the entire piece here.

Comments

As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to edit or remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. The same applies to trolling, the use of multiple aliases, or just generally being a jerk. Enforcement of this policy is at the sole discretion of the site administrators and repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without warning