How About a Nice Game of Chess?

"It's not about: can we do it? It's should we do it, and what are the opportunity costs?" ~ General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff

This was the warning given in testimony before the US Senate in March 2012 from the most senior military adviser to the president regarding military intervention in Syria. Another voice of reason being ignored by the president and Congress. 

Dempsey was nominated for a new term as chairman of the joint chiefs. His appointment was delayed in the Senate last month because pro-war senators wanted "fuller advice about Syria". In other words, agree with us or we will hold up your renewal as chairman.

In a strategic move of overkill, similar to a scene from War Games (see attached video), Dempsey provided military options from limited strikes to US intervention à la Afghanistan and Iraq. His conclusion? Every option was risky and expensive. He also emphasized something a good general knows full well - once a country starts a military action, getting the hell out of Dodge is difficult at best. The only winning move is not to play.

"Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next," Dempsey wrote to the committee on 19 July. "Deeper involvement is hard to avoid."

Jon Stewart returned to The Daily Show with some excellent commentary regarding the situation in Syria. He played a variety of news network tape of various so-called experts claiming that military action against Syria is necessary because the US would look weak if they stood back and did nothing.

"Oh, right," he said. "We have to bomb Syria because we're in the seventh grade."

One more voice of reason and one of the people writing on the Internet who has my highest respect is Robert Reich (http://robertreich.org/), who was Secretary of Labor under President Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1997. In a recent blog he made the following statement (in a very long sentence) -

Time and again over the last half century American presidents have justified so-called “surgical strikes” because the nation’s “credibility” is at stake, and because we have to take some action to show our “strength and resolve” — only to learn years later that our credibility suffered more from our brazen bellicosity, that the surgical strikes only intensified hostilities and made us captive to forces beyond our control, and that our resolve eventually disappears in the face of mounting casualties of Americans and innocent civilians — and in the absence of clearly-defined goals or even clear exit strategies.

With all this expert advice, the president and secretary of state continue to press for limited strikes against Syria. Why? Money? Politics? Power? My advice to the president of the United States — how about a nice game of chess with the president of Syria.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NHWjlCaIrQo