The perils of Barack

Will he or won’t he?

So here we are.  Americans elected Barack Obama, and now he appears to be within a breath of embroiling us in a military confrontation in Syria.  If the most recent polls are a good indication, Americans are strongly opposed to intervening in Syria.  Even if there is incontrovertible proof that Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on his own people on 21 August, 46 percent of poll respondents last week said they would still strongly oppose a U.S. intervention in Syria.

Bret Baier laid it out in his Fox News broadcast this evening:  the opposition to intervening in Syria is by far the highest amount of public opposition to any proposed intervention or other military operation in the last 30 years.  The numbers against Syria bear no resemblance to the numbers on anything Americans can remember, whether Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, the Balkans, Somalia, Haiti, Panama, or Grenada.  Americans aren’t sold on the necessity or wisdom of a military attack on Syria; in fact, opposition to it, in the absence of conclusive proof that Assad used WMD, is a whopping 60 percent. Continue reading “The perils of Barack”

Britain taking lead on Syria?

Backing into a maelstrom?

One of these days, the mainstream media will catch up with reality and start reporting things as they are.  In the Libya intervention in 2011, the United States “led from behind” – France and Britain being the leaders out front – as a non-hostile kinetic military action sort of developed.  Reporters and pundits might have learned from that event that the capitals to watch are those of Europe.  They didn’t; but such appears to be the case again.

Britain, France

One watches Obama in vain.  But according to foreign media, if one is watching David Cameron, one is seeing things actually happen. Continue reading “Britain taking lead on Syria?”