A practical view, based on the Washington Post op-ed written by Retired General Barno and Ret. Gen. Scales.
- Dempsey disagrees completely with Kerry, based on his body language - and he is winning the argument (as stated in the op-ed). Dempsey does not need to say anything to Congress if he has the President's ear - the two of them have enough power to circumvent Congress on the policy.
- Obama is clearly playing by the Cameron playbook. Cameron took the vote to Parliament knowing exactly the answer he was going to get -- and it was voted down. If Obama wanted to strike Syria, he would have already done it without consulting Congress - the US does use drones (ah)
- Kerry is playing his humanitarian self. He appears to truly want action against Assad. Assuming Obama is using the Cameron playbook, then Kerry and the President are opposing sides of action - Obama against foreign action, Kerry is for it.
- The speech was on national television was cover, allowing the President to take any direction on foreign policy, maximizing his source of power by laying out his line of thought.
- The public does not have the stomach for a long drawn-out multifaceted civil war. The strikes would accomplish little in the form of substance - even with precision guided missile strikes. However, this would prevent the stolen donkey from becoming the stolen Porsche, adding symbolic value to other nations.
Link to article:
