Support for a war with Syria is miniscule, and it's shrinking fast. Today's polls show almost 3/4 of Americans disagree with President Obama's plan to intervene in the Syrian civil war. So, when you're backing a political position that's so deeply unpopular, who do you trust with the task of changing hearts and minds?
You need someone loyal, someone articulate, and someone who the American people trust without question.
The administration must have decided "two outta three ain't bad," because they're sending someone nobody trusts - Susan Rice. Yes, that Susan Rice. Susan "spontaneous uprising cause by a Youtube video" Rice.
Currently the National Security Advisor, the former U.N. Ambassador spent the day avoiding Benghazi questions while telling anyone who would listen that they'd better get behind the President's plans for Syria. If they don't, she said, that “could indicate the United States is not prepared to use the full range of tools necessary to keep our country safe.”
So...we're back to pretending that Syria represents some kind of imminent threat to the United States.
Rice spoke before the New American Foundation this afternoon. There, she made the case that “Any president, Republican or Democrat, must have recourse to all elements of American power to design and implement our national security policy - diplomatic, economic or militaristic. Rejecting limited military action that President Obama strongly supports would raise questions around the world about whether the United States is truly prepared to use the full range of its power.”
She failed to mention whether any of that "militaristic power" would be used to bring those who attacked the Benghazi consulate to justice. As has become de rigueur among people trying to shill for President Obama's Syrian action, she instead spent most of her time desperately trying to link Assad's punishment to Iran. Failure to act, she says, will send the wrong message to the Iranian government.
“Leaders in Tehran must know the United States means what we say,” Rice said. “If we do not respond when Iran’s close ally, Syria, uses weapons of mass destruction, what message does that send to Iran?”
It would probably send a similar message to the one we sent when the United States refused to support the Iranian uprisings in 2009. But hey, who can remember that far back? That was then, this is now. Now, the President wants a war, so everything is different.
Plus, according to Rice, this time we actually have a legitimate goal. If we attack Assad, she claims we might be able to “shake his confidence” and degrade his ability to use chemical weapons in the future. We couldn't eliminate his ability to use them, but Rice says that “If Assad were so brazen to use chemical weapons again, he would know we possess the capability to further degrade his capabilities.”
In other words: we'll attack him this time, and if he does it again, we'll attack him again. We won't solve anything, but Assad can count on a stiff slap on the wrist each and every time he uses weapons of mass destruction.
That sounds like a winning strategy....
