Imagine hiring PETA’s director to run the cattle industry. Or the EPA administrator placed in charge of oil and natural gas exploration. Would anybody be surprised when things don’t go well?
Yet that’s exactly what’s happened with President Obama, Secretary Kerry, and their top advisers leading the nation.
And why? As former war protesters and anti-war activists, they made careers out of running campaigns to end wars, not to start them. The use of military force to achieve desired outcomes is not something they’re prepared for, and through their many miscues and mixed messages on Syria, it shows.
They surround themselves with like-minded followers and those who are good at simply taking orders.
Though Team Obama hired roughly a dozen retired admirals and generals into the administration, they’ve also brought on an almost equal number of former top Al Qaeda lawyers, speaking volumes about Mr. Obama’s mindset and priorities.
Thus high profile gaffes, ad-libs, and misplaced priorities on enormously important national security issues should come as no surprise.
If Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry were leading a student forum on a college campus, that would be one thing. But Syria is not an academic exercise, nor a video game. This is high stakes chess with our toughest adversaries — Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah, squarely backed by a resurgent Russia. We must hold our elected leaders accountable for coherent and realistic strategies that advance U.S. national interests. And thus far though the Syrian debacle, we have only seen one embarrassment after another — damaging our credibility along the way.
Having been a spokesman for both the Pentagon and a top tier presidential candidate, my view is that Mr. Kerry & Mr. Obama don’t have a realistic sense of what war and diplomacy entail.
They have shown reckless disregard for the safety of all Americans, with unwise “red line” threats and subsequent promises of “limited military action” against a dictator with deep ties to terror networks. And for something that strains the imagination to say it’s in our national interest. Though undoubtedly horrific, why is killing 1,400 people with chemical weapons significantly worse than 100,000 already killed by rockets, bombs, bullets? As much as Team Obama has touted the U.N. and international community, they’re not buying it either.
Launching a hundred or so Tomahawks and calling it a day is not realistic, as we can expect reprisals from Hezbollah and other Iranian/Syrian proxies, potentially worldwide. When Syria’s ruthless dictator Bashar Al-Assad says we “can expect everything,” I’ll take him at his word.