For over 3 years Saudi Arabia’s ongoing efforts have been to support and train the Free Syrian Army; their goal has been to topple Assad’s brutal regime that has killed over 100,000 Syrians, created 2 million Syrian refugees, and used chemical weapons to kill unarmed civilians multiple times.  If the Free Syrian Army created by Saudi Arabia is unable to succeed, Iran will be strengthened in its strategic control of the “crescent”, that area that encircles Saudi Arabia with its militant proxies in the countries of Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Iran and Afghanistan (Iran already has the military advantage on the ground in Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq).  Prince Bandar’s strategy would only be successful, if Obama ceases being indecisive, and finally demonstrates that he will take a strategic, sustained, and long term approach to defeating the Assad regime and only under the following conditions  (1) if a very strong and sustained coalition strikes Syria to take out Syria’s aircraft, air defense network, the command & control system, it’s airfields, and all ammunitions storage facilities  (2) if Obama remains committed to support the operation of the Free Syrian Army for as long as it takes---and it would take years not weeks, (2) only if Obama ceases to continue his unilateral downgrading of the strength of the US Armed Forces which he has been doing for 4 years, and instead strengthens it, (3) only if the US obtains more than a token commitment from a coalition of French, British, Saudi Arabian, Turkish, and Jordanian forces, (4) only if the Free Syrian Army is given the financial and military support on the ground by the Middle East countries in the coalition to be able to prevail against thousands of Hezbollah, Al Q’ieda, and Hamas terrorists who have been pouring into Syria intent on taking control of the country with the help of Iran, and  (5) only if  Assad is replaced as the leader of Syria by representatives of the Free Syrian Army.  Before the US Congress approves any military strike, it should consider whether the above 5 conditions can be accomplished with the current occupant of the Oval Office, and if the US will be able to extricate itself from the conflict after a proposed air strike—the endgame is the critical issue that the congress should consider before going into any military conflict.

Unfortunately, based upon the way Obama and Hillary have conducted the US Middle East policy over the last 4 years, it is unlikely that the above listed 5 conditions would be accomplished while Obama in the occupant of the Oval Office. Since it is highly unlikely that Obama will strengthen the US Armed Forces, General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has publically stated he disagrees with the proposal to strike Syria because it can’t be sustained by the very weakened US Armed Forces, and because of a number of incoherent and shallow approaches by Obama and Hillary to Middle East policy over the last 4 years listed below underlines Obama’s lack of consistency and reliability.  As listed below, we do not believe Obama will follow thru and sustain such an important operation, until it meets with success as follows:  

(1) When the Iranian students demonstrated in the streets for freedom in the Green Movement, early in Obama’s first term, and sought US support, Obama ignored them, and their movement was violently crushed by Iran.  (2) When the Iraq engagement came to the end, Obama abruptly removed all US troops, did not negotiate a Status of Forces Agreement, and Iran moved in to reap the rewards of the long hard military efforts of US military forces to rid the country of Saddam Hussein and established predominate influence over the Iraqi government (Iraq that was under control has since erupted in flames with Al Q’ieda attacking at will). (3) When the free Egyptian people demonstrated in the street for a democratic government, Obama pushed hard for the removal of Mubarak, supported Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood government, and supported them with massive military aide despite the fact that they were killing Christians and suppressing opposition parties.  (4) When the US Ambassador to Libya repeatedly sought more security for many months to protect the US Mission in Benghazi because the eastern region of Libya had turned into an Al Q’ieda training and staging area for Al Q’ieda recruits being sent to Syria, Obama and Hillary refused to provide the required security, 4 Americans were killed, and now Libya is destabilized with Al Q’ieda in control in the eastern provinces.  (5) When the Free Syrian Army being trained and supported by Saudi Arabia sought US support over 2 years ago and Assad was very weak, Obama did not move to do what he is proposing to do today, and Al Q’ieda, Hizbballah, and Hamas terrorists supported by Iran infiltrated into Syria, complicating the removal of Assad.  (6) When thousands of Christians were being murdered and tortured in Egypt by the Muslim Brotherhood and 100 Christian churches were burned Obama tried to force the Egyptian military to retain Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood government; he was ignored which resulted in the US losing the special relationship it has had with Egypt for 40 years.  (7) When Obama came into office, he changed the Rules of Engagement for all Combat personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, making it much more dangerous for US personnel to operate, resulted in increased US casualties, and provided an operational advantage to the terrorists and the Taliban.    (8) Four three years Obama has been signaling the Taliban that he will have all US combat forces out of Afghanistan on a “specific” date; the Taliban and Al Q’ieda will simply roll right back in to Afghanistan leading up to that date.  The rulers of the Middle East countries friendly to the US no longer believe Obama will do what is in the best interest of the United States and their countries.  Based upon the above track record, I for one, find it hard to believe Obama will do what is right in Syria, especially since he has already assured Iran and Russia that he does not seek “regime change” like Saud Arabian have been working to attain for 3 years.

That Red Line drawn by Obama during his presidential campaign, in order to sound tough, was a statement no cautious President would have ever made; today Obama said he never set a Red Line, unfortunately for the last 4 years, Obama has refused to take responsibility for any of his unwise statement nor for the negative results of his policies.    According to intelligent sources by multiple NATO countries, that Red Line has been crossed thirteen times by Assad and while he killed over 100,000 Syrians Obama has done nothing, and according to US intelligence sources, the Red Line was crossed again in June when Assad used sarin gas to kill between 100 and 150 Syrians.    For the last 4 years, the Obama administration has not had a strategic long term approach to conducting US Middle East policy.  No military strategist proposing a strike on Syria would ever take “regime change” off the table before attacking a government that is committing war crimes against its civilians, or would assure Assad that there would only be limited punitive strikes using only 200 cruise missiles against static targets, when we know that aircraft are required to effectively degrade an enemy’s military mobile assets and a sustained bombing air campaign to be effective, would take many weeks.  Assad will not be deterred, by a limited cruise missile attack.  Obama by his comments has already made the strike irrelevant; the question members of Congress should ask the Obama administration is what a proposed attack on Syria will accomplish---what is the end game.   Assad, his family and senior Syrian government leaders will be flown to Iran for protection before the telegraphed strike is launched.  Probably all of Syria’s military aircraft have already been flown to Iran for safety, and all the Syrian mobile rocket launchers have been moved into caves and deep cover; Assad has had plenty of time to prepare his defenses, has dispersed his military hardware into heavily populated civilian areas, and coordinate his response to the attack with Russia, Iran, Hezbollah, and the Syrian Army.  So much for Obama’s intelligence leaks and advance warnings to Syria and Iran; there has never been so many leaks from the national command authority in 238 years.  If Obama intends to do just a short term ineffective military strike to send a message that will not change the strategic situation on the ground in Syria, it would embolden Assad to follow up on his threats to respond, will provoke Iran’s militant proxies in the Middle East to act against US interests, embolden Iran and Russia to replace damaged military hardware, and may result in a strike on Israel.  

The War Powers Act already gives Obama limited short term authority to strike Syria for a 60 day period, if he deems it necessary, and he can do it with or without Congressional support, but he is seeking the cover of a Congressional vote, because his Red Line comments during his presidential campaign was inappropriate and put him in a box. The President has had a strong case to act decisively in Syria for at least 2 years, there have been 13 separate cases where Assad employed Chemical weapons against civilians, Assad has been killing over 100,000 civilians for over 2 years, yet Obama has dithered and has been indecisive.  The bigger picture here is Iran, its nuclear weapons development, its intent to foment a Shite insurgency in Syria, the fact it welcomes instability in the region, and poses a serious military threat to US Middle Eastern allies in the region.  In November 2014, every Congressman will be held accountable by the voters in their Congressional District if their support for a “symbolic and insignificant” strike, that does nothing to destabilize Assad, and leads to a wider conflict.   Since I do not believe the current resident of the White House will take the 5 necessary steps listed above in the first paragraph, and especially do believe that Obama will continue to weaken strength of the US Armed Forces, as he has been doing for 4 years, I cannot support a vote in Congress to authorize an “indecisive and un-sustained” strike against Syria, that will not change the situation on the ground for the Free Syrian Army.   Since Obama already has the authority to make a strike in Syria because of the War Powers Act, he should demonstrate that he will finally take some decisive action on his own in the Middle East without the need for a Congressional vote, and make more than a “symbolic and insignificant” strike against Iran’s ally in Syria; that action would send an important message to Tehran in the midst of its nuclear development program. 

We are just around the corner from the 12th anniversary of 9/11; will Obama protect the US Embassies worldwide like he and Hillary failed to do last year when the US Ambassador in Libya repeated requests for more protection were ignored, and Al Q’ieda terrorists attacked the US Mission in Benghazi, and killed him and 3 other Americans?