You have commented 358 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Kerry: No Time for 'Armchair Isolationism' on Syria
2013-09-04
[An Nahar] The United States must "stand up and act" to punish the Syrian regime and cannot resort to isolationism in the face of "slaughter," Secretary of State John F. I was in Vietnam, you know Kerry
Former Senator-for-Life from Massachussetts, self-defined war hero, speaker of French, owner of a lucky hat, conqueror of Cambodia, and current Secretary of State...
 told politicians Tuesday.

"This is not the time for armchair isolationism. This is not the time to be spectators to a slaughter," Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Isolationism: the concept that it's not always appropriate to go bombing foreigners...
"Neither our country nor our conscience can afford the cost of silence," Kerry said, according to prepared remarks.
Not quite what you said in 2002...
"We have spoken up against unspeakable horror. Now we must stand up and act," he added.

Kerry also pointed out that failure by the United States to take military action against Syria would send a dangerous signal to Iran and Hizbullah.

"Our inaction would surely give them a permission slip for them to at least misinterpret our intention, if not to put it to the test," Kerry told senators.

Hizbullah "militants" in Leb are "hoping that isolationism will prevail" and "North Korea is hoping that ambivalence carries the day," he said.

"They are all listening for our silence."
Posted by:Fred

#29  Thing about Armchair Isolationism is that you can always change your mind. While once you go in its hard to undo.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2013-09-04 21:06  

#28  
Posted by: 3dc   2013-09-04 20:53  

#27  Let us support Kerry and Obama exactly how Kerry supported America, our troops and the president in 1973
Posted by: Airandee   2013-09-04 20:33  

#26  Good point P2K. And if they have that would be very flexible.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2013-09-04 18:49  

#25  Why shouldn't AL-Q worry about back to school.

They expect to have Obumbles and his infidels do their heavy lifting for them in Syria.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2013-09-04 18:47  

#24  The optics of this side-by-each with the results of our cruise missiles will be interesting....:

Meanwhile, Al Qaeda Distributes Back-To-School Materials In Syria
Posted by: Uncle Phester   2013-09-04 18:30  

#23  Of course it doesn't enter these twits minds, that while you're watching and getting hyper ventilated with Syria, that once America executes basically unilaterally, the Soviets Russian take care of the Georgia 'problem' using the same rationale and unilateral application of force.
Posted by: Procopius2k    2013-09-04 17:40  

#22  He SHOULD lose big! It's a total cock-up of an idea. Those who vote 'yes' should be called to account.
Posted by: Besoeker   2013-09-04 17:00  

#21  Poor Jawny. He's become everything he grew up hating...
Posted by: tu3031   2013-09-04 16:56  

#20  Last night I watched the Senate on C-SPan and gave obama 50/50 of winning in the Senate, now watching the house ... he's going to lose big.
Posted by: 3dc   2013-09-04 14:12  

#19  Ya' had it right the first time, Deacon. ;-p
Posted by: Barbara   2013-09-04 13:04  

#18  The Hildabeast got out just in time and left Obumbles with the Lurch. I mean, In the Lurch.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2013-09-04 12:16  

#17  With the exception of France, the rest of the world has shown zero inclination to send men and equipment to bomb Syria. If we're isolationists, then being isolationist means "being more or less in line with the rest of the world".
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2013-09-04 11:37  

#16  He is correct. It is time for "Operation Recliner...."
Posted by: Uncle Phester   2013-09-04 11:06  

#15  180 countries signed the poison gas treaties. If the only one who cares about it is the USA then the treaties are worthless and we should walk away
Posted by: 3dc   2013-09-04 10:56  

#14  Here, the Senate looks like it is lining up with 0. Likewise, the leadership of both parties in the House has lined up with 0

Now witness the power of these fully armed and operational propaganda stations.

Armchair Isolationists: liberal arts majors/dropouts living in their parent's basement blogging about the cruel world.

Would you believe it if I suggested that over the last week, there was a team put together to come up with the best slur for the opposition?

The answer is not as important as that there was a question.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2013-09-04 10:47  

#13  Limited war would be bad enough but there are no freaking objectives. I guess that makes it easier to walk away and say we're done but it also guarantees the enemy will claim they survived and chased you away making it a victory for Assad and his allies.

Far better to just recind the No Assassinations executive order and let the enemies imaginations run wild for awhile.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2013-09-04 10:29  

#12  This may end up being a very important vote for reasons that have nothing to do with Syria or War.

0 only decided to submit this to Congress when the British Parliament said no thanks. The Tory MPs, who are supposed to be a rubber stamp for the PM voted with their constituents.

Here, the Senate looks like it is lining up with 0. Likewise, the leadership of both parties in the House has lined up with 0. Ultimately it is the rank and file in the House, especially those in competitive districts, who are going to throw a monkey wrench into 0's works. Because they're listening to their constituents.

What could be happening here is a rejection of the elite by the hoi polloi. If so, 2014 could be very interesting. The answer is blowing in the wind.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2013-09-04 10:25  

#11  Waging limited war is expensive. Of course we'll soon need to raise the national debt limit and borrow more money from China, but we'll be saving untold numbers of Syrian women and children. Did I mention the children ?
Posted by: Besoeker   2013-09-04 10:15  

#10  While I'm at it...

Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2013-09-04 10:06  

#9  Obama today:
"First of all, I didn't set a red line," said Obama. "The world set a red line. The world set a red line when governments representing 98 percent of the world's population said the use of chemical weapons are [inaudble] and passed a treaty forbidding their use, even when countries are engaged in war. Congress set a red line when it ratified that treaty. Congress set a red line when it indicated that in a piece of legislation entitled the Syria Accountability Act that some of the horrendous things happening on the ground there need to be answered for. So, when I said in a press conference that my calculus about what's happening in Syria would be altered by the use of chemical weapons, which the overwhelming consensus of humanity says is wrong, that wasn't something I just kind of made up. I didn't pluck it out of thin air. There's a reason for it."

"Present! Who ya gonna believe? Me or your lying eyes and ears"
Posted by: Frank G   2013-09-04 09:55  

#8  
Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain   2013-09-04 09:54  

#7  The fatigue shirt: The only difference btwn Kerry and Hanoi Jane. Spit, sleeve wipe, spit again, walk away.
Posted by: Besoeker   2013-09-04 08:38  

#6  Do they all watch Blazing Saddles before writing these speeches?
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2013-09-04 08:34  

#5  
Posted by: Pappy   2013-09-04 08:19  

#4  Not taking credit for this, Jonah Goldberg wrote it:

Isolationist: n. Someone who occasionally opposes bombing foreigners.
Posted by: M. Murcek   2013-09-04 06:57  

#3  What on earth is "armchair isolationism"? The phrase is new to me.
Posted by: trailing wife   2013-09-04 06:48  

#2  One other thing to consider - Obama is always playing politics. His angle here? Use the Syria crisis to either macho-up and cover his earlier error about "red line", or else dump the blood of the Syrian rebels in the GOP's lap if they vote it down. And the press will be willing accomplices either way.

I remember back when we had a free press in the US that reported fairly openly instead of openly partisan and lying by commission and omission like Pravda. I wonder if I will see that again before I die?
Posted by: OldSpook   2013-09-04 02:21  

#1  Hmm... in over a year we still can't get a straight answer about Benghazi in territory that is much more open to our intelligence gathering, yet in Syria, within a matter of days, we have proof positive, not only of a sarin attack, but who did it, and the exact number of casualties (higher even than what the rebels sent us)? Considering most of the dead were buried within 24 hours per custom, how the heck can we know that number? Amazing the level of bull that is being tossed by the administration, and people credulously accepting it given the previous track record. Kerry today would not rule out involvement of ground troops. Ready for another Mogadishu?

How will this further US National Security? And what is the goal, the end-state? How do these strikes achieve that? What are the probable and possible downstream consequences of these actions in Syria and in the region over the next few years?

I have yet to see those questions adequately addressed. That is why oppose our getting involved by putting our military in harm's way to hit Pencilneck. Then there is the problem that the striked may end up helping Al Qaeda and Iran far more than it does the people of Syria or others in the region (especially the Kurds).

As seen elsewhere, "Outrage is not a strategy"
Posted by: OldSpook   2013-09-04 01:56  

00:00