Friday Open Thread

I'm starting my weekend early, so here's the Friday Open Thread with a news roundup that you've all been waiting for. Feel free to talk about whatever suits you.

1. US will allow Syria to miss the first deadline. I'm shocked, I tell you...shocked.
2. ObamaCare exchanges in 36 stats cannot calculate how much people will pay. We're in the best of hands.
3. Mediation continues in the "Baby Veronica" case. Hopefully, people will make reasonable decisions.
4. Navy Yard Shooter used an illegal gun. He sawed off the end of the shotgun with a hacksaw. Anyone wondering if he paid the requisite fee and fill out the proper paperwork? We obviously need to ban hacksaws.

If you don't like my open thread, go check out Brad's. He may have something different. If you don't like that either, turn off your computer and go to the Greek Festival. It's the weekend. Enjoy it.

Former Gitmo Detainee Joined Rebels in Syria

Well isn't that special.

Just so you don't forget, there are no "good guys" in Syria. I'm pretty sure all the good guys have either been killed by everyone else, or they've left.

But apparently, the plan is to send guns to jihadist Al-Qaida fighters and hope for the best. I'm sure that will work out just fine.

Saturday Morning Open Thread

Welcome to Saturday. You made it. I haven't done a news roundup in awhile, so it's about time:

1. Balloon guy turns back after 12 hours. According to the piece, it's due to a "technical issue". I think that "technically" crossing the Atlantic via helium balloons was a stupid idea.
2. Happy Birthday to the Star Spangled Banner. On this day in history, Francis Scott Key composed the lyrics that ultimately became our national anthem.
3. Columbia City Council ignored the advice of their own lawyer in Bull Street Deal: The City's own lawyer stated he had an "ethical duty" to advise that the deal exposed the City to "significant  legal and financial risks". Hey, what could that guy possibly know? He's just a lawyer, right? The City Council members can always just raise our taxes and solve the problem!
4. US and Russia announce an agreement on Syria: Russia has negotiated us into giving up the right to use force. UN sanctions will be the enforcement mechanism. I'm sure everything will work out just fine.
5. The Gamecocks try to rebound against Vanderbilt: I'm hoping for a good showing from the defense. They could use a good game after the poor showing against Georgia.

That's all I've got for you. Today's post brought to you by Hemingway's Fishing Charters.

The President Cannot Summon any Generosity of Spirit

Not an ounce.

What did I think of the speech last night? I'm glad you asked. Have a seat; I'll tell you.

I thought the speech was workmanlike and mostly unobjectionable until the very end. Up to that point, it had been a repeat performance of everything I had already heard. Leaving aside all the small inconsistencies in the logical reasoning with deterrence, dictators, and chemical weapons, the end of his speech really poisoned the well.

At (near) the end of the speech, President Obama said this:

"And so to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America's military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just.

To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain and going still on a cold hospital floor, for sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough."

Are you kidding me?

His "friends on the left" believe in freedom and dignity. Apparently, people on the "right" don't.

What do people on the right (me) believe in, according to our President? According to our President: military might. Just pure force of arms. Not "national security" which would have a moral component. Not "commitment to keeping the nation safe". No, the moral side is totally stripped out of it. Apparently, I simply am for the pure love of martial power. Like Napoleon and Caesar.

He's asking for my support, but cannot even acknowledge that I have a legitimate motivation. I'm just a moron lawyer, but that ain't how to win friends and influence people.

His pals on the left support *values* which can be attained by military force, but me and my friends on the right are just for blowing stuff up and seeing the sweet bomb-video footage on CNN. Even when the President is trying to REACH OUT TO ME, he still can't even bring himself to pay me the slightest degree of respect. Not even a little.

I basically heard: Hey, you wingers! Get behind the war effort because this should appeal to your reptilian brains. We're going to blow stuff up. Y'all like guns and stuff. We're going to slate your bestial need for violence.

Friends on the left? I'm calling to your better angels! Do it for the children! It's in the greater good for mankind. There's a true moral purpose here.

What a jerk. I turned off the speech at that point.

Here's the thing: I know the President feels contempt for me. I get it. However, this is apparently a BIG speech, and the President is (supposedly) trying to get everyone to put aside their ill-will and political motivations in a moment of great national importance. However, the President himself, is incapable of doing that. He cannot summon a single fiber of his being to show generosity of spirit.

Unbelievable.

Russia's Offer to Take Syria's Chemical Weapons

First, I think this will be the deal. Or something very close. It offers too much face-saving to everyone involved. Don't forget: Syria and Russia are allies. They're on the same side. Russia wants Assad to stay in power. That's their interest. With this deal: 

• The USA gets to say: We forced Assad to give up his chemical weapons! 
• The Russians get to say: We brokered a peace deal! Look how important we are! 
• Assad gets to say: I'm not guilty, but here are my chemical weapons.

The Russians and Syrians know that we are very unlikely to bomb Assad much. However, Russia might not have wanted to take the chance that a little push on Assad might have tipped the balance of the civil war. The Russians cannot afford for Assad to lose to the jihadist rebels. So maybe the Russians are being a little risk-averse here.

Also, the chemical weapons have no further use for Assad. His goal is to win the civil war, and he can do that with conventional weapons. I'm sure that part of this deal will have the Russians giving/selling more conventional weapons to the Assad, so he can continue prosecuting the war. I hate to break it to y'all, but people are just as dead from an AK-47 as they are from sarin. Dead is dead.

It's possible that Assad is giving up nothing by giving up chemical weapons since those weapons have already achieved as much military advantage they were going to achieve. Think about it like chess.

What Russia and Syria are doing is taking and keeping the initiative, forcing Obama to respond to them. They're offering to exchange some pieces for position and time. The piece they are giving up are no longer useful in the full sense. However, they get to string out "inspections" and such for a long time. It will probably be long enough for Syria to win the civil war.

In chess--a game Putin no doubt knows very well--initiative is nearly everything: one has the advantage when one is forcing an opponent to respond to your moves rather than you to his. By forcing Obama's play, he is effectively one or more moves ahead.

In chess, there are (basically) three stages of the game. There's the opening game, in which the players being to strategically place all of their pieces on the board, bringing out their powerful pieces in turn. This is followed by the middle game, which takes place after some of the pawns have been cleared away and there is room for powerful pieces to exert their reach. Finally, you have the endgame, where final pressure on the opponent's king is exerted, and he's ultimately powerless and trapped in checkmate.

We're now in the middle game. The endgame here is Iran with nukes. Checkmate happens when the Iranians achieve nuclear capability and we are maneuvered into a position where we can do nothing about it.

Sometimes mistakes in the opening cannot be overcome.

We're Going to Degrade Assad's Spoon Inventory

A "senior official" at the White House just described the planned attack:

The strike, as envisioned, would be limited in the number of targets and done within a day or two. It could be completed in one fell swoop with missiles, said one senior official familiar with the weapons involved. A smaller, follow-on strike could be launched if targets aren’t sufficiently damaged.

A second senior official, who has seen the most recent planning, offered this metaphor to describe such a strike: If Assad is eating Cheerios, we’re going to take away his spoon and give him a fork. Will that degrade his ability to eat Cheerios? Yes. Will it deter him? Maybe. But he’ll still be able to eat Cheerios.

Seriously.

We're going to take away his spoon and give him a fork. These are the people in charge of my country right now. Sleep tight, America.

I don't know about the rest of you campers, but I can eat cereal pretty well with a fork. And isn't the idea to make it where I don't want to continue eating the cereal or don't have the capability to keep eating the cereal?

First of all, that's the dumbest metaphor for a military operation ever. Wait a second! What if that's not a metaphor? What if that's the plan! Gotcha, Assad! You're spoonless now. I bet you'll think twice about using chemical weapons now that you don't have any spoons. Looks like it's all solid breakfast food for you from now on!

Second, remember: we're just "sending a message" here, y'all. And the message is what? You're reduced to forks now, Assad! Maybe we should just drive by Assad's house and throw a lit sting of black cats in his front yard. That might have the same effect. Also, I hear egging some tanks and airplanes is a good way to send a message. Don't forget about the ol' flaming bag of poo on the doorstep. That's a classic.

So, to sum up: This is a hugely important moment for the entire world, and it requires an unbelievably small response from the United States that is merely symbolic, all so the rest of the world will respect us. Got it.

Maybe we should just send Assad a dead fish wrapped in a newspaper.

OPERATION: Total Clownshow

Also, per the piece above: "Degrade" is not a military textbook term, the four officers and officials said. In other words, it is open to interpretation. I had a little riff going on this word over at Brad's place, so I'd like to go ahead and say this now: I was right.

Advice from Clausewitz for Obama

When you're thinking over this whole Syrian intervention, it's always helpful to remember your Clausewitz. Here are a few helpful tidbits that the President should consider if we're going to war with Syria.

In any specific action, in any measure we may undertake, we always have the choice between the most audacious and the most careful solution. Some people think that the theory of war always advises the latter. That assumption is false. If the theory does advise anything, it is the nature of war to advise the most decisive, that is, the most audacious. Theory leaves it to the military leader, however, to act according to his own courage, according to his spirit of enterprise, and his self-confidence. Make your choice, therefore, according to this inner force; but never forget that no military leader has ever become great without audacity.

If you're not prepared to go forward boldly, it may be better not to go at all. Half-measures don't win battles. If you know your objective, go forward with confidence. What's our objective, again?

Here's more. Specifically, look at points #5 and #7.

The few principles, therefore, which come up in this connection, and which depend primarily on the condition of the respective states and armies, can in their essential parts be very briefly summarized:

1. General Principles

I. Warfare has three main objects:

(a) To conquer and destroy the armed power of the enemy;

(b) To take possession of his material and other sources of strength, and

(c) To gain public opinion.

2. To accomplish the first purpose, we should always direct our principal operation against the main body of the enemy army or at least against an important portion of his forces. For only after defeating these can we pursue the other two objects successfully.

3. In order to seize the enemy's material forces we should direct our operations against the places where most of these resources are concentrated: principal cities, storehouses, and large fortresses. On the way to these objectives we shall encounter the enemy's main force or at least a considerable part of it.

4. Public opinion is won through great victories and the occupation of the enemy's capital.

5. The first and most important rule to observe in order to accomplish these purposes, is to use our entire forces with the utmost energy. Any moderation shown would leave us short of our aim. Even with everything in our favor, we should be unwise not to make the greatest effort in order to make the result perfectly certain. For such effort can never produce negative results. Suppose the country suffers greatly from this, no lasting dis- advantage will arise; for the greater the effort, the sooner the suffering will cease.

The moral impression created by these actions is of infinite importance. They make everyone confident of success, which is the best means for suddenly raising the nation's morale.

6. The second rule is to concentrate our power as much as possible against that section where the chief blows are to be delivered and to incur disadvantages elsewhere, so that our chances of success may increase at the decisive point. This will compensate for all other disadvantages.

7. The third rule is never to waste time. Unless important advantages are to be gained from hesitation, it is necessary to set to work at once. By this speed a hundred enemy measures are nipped in the bud, and public opinion is won most rapidly. Surprise plays a much greater role in strategy than in tactics. It is the most important element of victory. Napoleon, Frederick II, Gustavus Adolphus, Caesar, Hannibal, and Alexander owe the brightest rays of their fame to their swiftness.

The tools of war change through the ages, but the philosophy of war does not. In addition to reading his theory, I would also assign The Guns of August to our President as some required reading. I have an old copy around somewhere that I can let him borrow.

Syria and the Just War Theory

More on Syria, y'all. Yeah, it's like that. This whole clown-show we have running our government really has things going swell. Since Congress is now "debating" whether or not to authorize the President to use military force a/k/a DECLARE WAR on Syria, let's talk about that for a moment. 

First, let's not kid ourselves. The President has proposed a "time-limited and scope-limited action" against Syria. Ok, what does that mean exactly?

It likely means we are going to launch missiles from submarines or surface ships and blow up buildings in Syria that are military targets such as military headquarters, bridges, radar sites, etc. We're going to blow up stuff in a foreign country with missiles and kill people.

Now, I grant you, it's not exactly the Normandy Invasion, but it certainly ain't junior prom, either. Whatever you want to call it, I guarantee you the people who are killed by missile attacks will not like it. They'll probably consider it war. Remember when two airplanes slammed into the twin towers? What did we consider that to be?

So, as our President likes to say, let me be clear: It's a declaration of War that he's seeking from Congress. It's not a big war. It's just a small, short war. And we're confident that the enemy will not be able to respond by bringing the war back to the US.

Also, the proposal from President Obama doesn’t satisfy the conditions of Just War theory. For those of you scoring at home, the conditions of the Just War Theory:

This is a big, over-simplification, but the basic three elements of a Just War are traditionally:

1. Just Cause;

2. Just Authority; and

3. Just Result/Intent.

Punishment is never a just cause. Defense of others is, but that’s not Obama’s proffered justification. He says he wants to “punish” chemical weapon usage. He also lacks Just Authority. He refused to go to the UN because in the words of an administration official, it would be pointless. Finally, the proposed war lacks a Just Result/Intention, since he says he wants to hurt others, but not to the point of causing their surrender.

That’s just the traditional Just War theory. If you want to add the modern elements of:

4. Proportionality; and,

5. Last Resort.

it gets even worse. Proportionality means that the benefits of war are proportional to the evils of war. “Saving face” is not proportional to killing people. And that's what the President has proposed. He wants to show that he means what he says, even when he says dumb things. And finally, there’s no argument that Obama’s “just enough not to be mocked” war could ever be a “last resort”. (Also, too late on that one, Skippy.)

Anyone in Congress who votes for this moronic little war throws the Just War theory out the window.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there's no way we can strike Syria without it being a Just War, but the proffered military strategy here of "let's just dock Assad's allowance and move on" ain't it.

What is the Virtue of a Proportional Response?

The whole situation with a "time-limited, scope-limited" attack against Syria reminds me of this.

Is this proposed cruise missile strike really more than just docking Assad's allowance?

Happy Labor Day: News Roundup and Links

As you may have noticed, I've been on vacation the last few days. Here are some headlines from around the weekend:

Lindsey Graham to meet with Obama on Syria. Graham actually wants more of a heavy-handed intervention in Syria, so this should be an interesting meeting. My prediction is the Congressional resolution in the Congress is going to make for some strange bedfellows among the anti-war liberals and the Rand Paul libertarians. This vote is going to be close. Personally, I would vote "no". I still don't know what our compelling interest is.

The UGA Offensive Line Gets Ready for the Gamecocks and Clowney. They better do something different that what they did in Clemson. Georgia didn't look like world-beaters last week. And after all the criticism of being "winded" and "out of shape" you better believe that #7 will be motivated in Athens.

The EU wants to put "speed limiters" on all cars, holding them to 70MPH. Obviously, because Europe's biggest problem right now is cars going too fast. 

Here's some good bowties if you like dressing up for tailgates. And here's a Yeti cooler that's perfect for those of you who struggle to keep your keg of beer cold at your tailgate. Maybe drink the beer more quickly, y'all?

That's all I've got. Enjoy the last day of wearing white shoes, ladies. Tick, tock...

The Folly of Striking Syria

Col. Ralph Peters has a good analysis of the situation in Syria.

You might as well try to teach a snake to juggle as hope the Obama administration will think strategically. The “peace president” is about to embark on his third military adventure, this time in Syria, without having learned the lessons of his botched efforts in Afghanistan and Libya. He hasn’t even learned from the Bush administration’s mistakes — which he mocked with such delight.

Before launching a single cruise missile toward Syria, Team Obama needs to be sure it has a good answer to the question, “What comes next?”

Go read the whole thing.

I still haven't heard what the goal in Syria is. What's our compelling national interest? What is our motivation? Is Congress going to be given a chance to authorize this action?

This seems like President Obama got his feelings hurt and is wanting to lash out. Otherwise, I can't explain it.

US Intervention in Syria: Why?

Apparently, our Nobel Peace Prize-Winning President is seriously considering sending military assets into Syria because...we'll I'm not sure way. On one hand we have a  oppressive tyrant who has committed atrocity after atrocity in the pursuit of keeping the country under his thumb. Not really a guy that we like.

On the other hand, we have a force of rebels led by jihadist elements of Al-Queda who are bent on establishing an Islamic based state. These guys aren't exactly who you want to bring home to mama, either.

So they're killing each other in a civil war of sorts. So far, about 100,000 people have been killed. Most recently, the tyrant has used chemical weapon on the rebels, killing a thousand or so. What to do?

When the US (or any country) is making the decision to intervene and bomb (kill people), there needs to be a solid reason why. Killing people is....a big decision, you know? We should be able to answer one of these two questions before taking military action:

1. The use of force is absolutely morally justified in order to protect ourselves, in that we have to do so because it's directly in our interest not to be a victim of an attack. (Self Defense)

2. The use of force is absolutely morally justified in order to protect another group, in that we would not be able to live with ourselves in being a bystander, while another group is harmed. (Defense of others)

Ideally, there should be a mix of the two. In the case of Syria, it's pretty clear that #1 doesn't apply. We're not being attacked, and we're not in any imminent danger of being attacked. It's a civil war in a country between jihadist elements and a secular dictator. Neither one of these groups likes us, and neither one of these groups is sympathetic. Why should we bomb either side? If we do, what's our goal? Is it to level the playing field? Is it to decapitate the regime? Is it to stop the use of chemical weapons, but allow normal killing to continue? Is there a moral difference between killing someone with chemical weapons and shooting them with an AK-47? Either way you're just as dead.

I know it's not a popular philosophy in foreign policy, but the doctrine of "Meh, shit happens..." shouldn't be overlooked here. I know that comes across as isolationist, but there has to be an event somewhere in the world that falls under the category of "Not our problem".

I think Syria qualifies as such.