U.S. Military Officers Voice Doubts Regarding The Wisdom Of Obama’s Decision To Strike Syria

Guest Post by Mara Zebest

U.S. Military officers (under the condition of anonymity) voice concern over the wisdom of Obama’s decision to strike Syria: “I can’t believe the president is even considering it.”

Even Obama doesn’t have the confidence or conviction of his actions to make the case before the American people. Obama cowardly attempted to send out John Kerry to plead the case.


Apparently Kerry wasn’t very confident or convincing either and gave the usual blah, blah, blah speech claiming the non-existent unsourced “evidence” for Assad’s use of chemical weapons as proof enough to justified a war with Syria. Kerry does the usual Democratic trick of avoiding “evidence” by praying on emotions with numerous horror stories (and claiming those stories are the “facts” and “evidence”). Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain of illusion.


WaPo reports the following:

The Obama administration’s plan to launch a military strike against Syria is being received with serious reservations by many in the U.S. military, which is coping with the scars of two lengthy wars and a rapidly contracting budget, according to current and former officers.

Having assumed for months that the United States was unlikely to intervene militarily in Syria, the Defense Department has been thrust onto a war footing that has made many in the armed services uneasy, according to interviews with more than a dozen military officers ranging from captains to a four-star general.

Former and current officers, many with the painful lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan on their minds, said the main reservations concern the potential unintended consequences of launching cruise missiles against Syria.

Some questioned the use of military force as a punitive measure and suggested that the White House lacks a coherent strategy. If the administration is ambivalent about the wisdom of defeating or crippling the Syrian leader, possibly setting the stage for Damascus to fall to fundamentalist rebels, they said, the military objective of strikes on Assad’s military targets is at best ambiguous.

“There’s a broad naivete in the political class about America’s obligations in foreign policy issues, and scary simplicity about the effects that employing American military power can achieve,” said retired Lt. Gen. Gregory S. Newbold, who served as director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the run-up to the Iraq war, noting that many of his contemporaries are alarmed by the plan.

Marine Lt. Col. Gordon Miller, a fellow at the Center for a New American Security, warned this week of “potentially devastating consequences, including a fresh round of chemical weapons attacks and a military response by Israel.”

“If President [Bashar al-Assad] were to absorb the strikes and use chemical weapons again, this would be a significant blow to the United States’ credibility and it would be compelled to escalate the assault on Syria to achieve the original objectives,” Miller wrote in a commentary for the think tank. […]

I can’t believe the president is even considering it,” said the officer, who like most officers interviewed for this story agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity because military personnel are reluctant to criticize policymakers while military campaigns are being planned. “We have been fighting the last 10 years a counterinsurgency war. Syria has modern weaponry. We would have to retrain for a conventional war.”

Read more here.

You Might Like