DOES THE MILITARY HAVE THE MONEY TO FIGHT IN SYRIA

9/9/13
Inhofe: ‘Degraded’ Military ‘Has No Money Left’ to Strike Syria:

The United States simply cannot financially afford to get into a confrontation with Syria.
“Our military has no money left,” he has linked the military’s dire condition to the White House’s $500 billion in budget cuts slated for the Pentagon over the next decade.
Inhofe said, the Obama administration is laying out a broad array of options in the civil-war torn country — where it’s suspected Bashar Assad’s regime turned chemical weapons against its own people — without ever laying out “a single option” or providing “a time line, a strategy for Syria and the Middle East, or a plan for the funds to execute such an option.”
Gen. [Martin] Dempsey, said we are putting our military on a path where the ‘force is so degraded and so unready’ that it would be ‘immoral to use the force,'” the administration will need to ask Congress to pay for strikes on Syria.
“[Hagel] indicated that the administration would consult with Congress on the cost of Training and supporting Syrian rebels could cost $500 million a year. Operating a no-fly zone would cost about $1 billion per month, the Pentagon would need to work with Congress to obtain funding for Syria attacks. the president owes it to both Congress and the American public “to lay out how they will fund their military action,”
“decimated our military.” “We must not forget this president has put us on the brink of a hollowed force,” he charged. “Our troops are stretched thin, the defense budget has been slashed to historic levels, and we are facing an unprecedented time of unrest across the Middle East amid growing concerns about Iran’s influence on the region and its nuclear ambitions.
“No red line should have been drawn without the strategy and funding to support it,”
the attack would be “limited” and that “eroding support would not deter Mr. Obama in deciding to go ahead.” Included in that “eroding support” is the United Kingdom, which has all but ruled out any British military involvement in Syria. Obama has yet to respond publicly to the nearly 200 House members from both parties who have signed letters calling on the President to seek formal congressional approval before launching any military strike against Syria.
Carville Blames Bush for Situation in Syria:
James Carville has once again pinned the blame for President Barack Obama’s troubles on the Bush administration, saying Americans’ lack of support for military action in Syria is a result of the Iraq war. Speaking to Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly Wednesday, Carville said that people are concerned about war in Syria because of the “incompetence of the Bush administration in Iraq.” You really think so,” pointing to the “mess” in Libya and Egypt a “defiant” Iran, adding, “”it doesn’t seem to be any clear vision on the part of President Obama.
chemical weapons “red line”: Discussion of showering Syria with a few million dollars’ worth of cruise missiles is now under way, hopefully making the Assad regime less likely to deploy weapons of mass destruction in the future. Wouldn’t there be a lot of collateral damage from attacking the regime’s chemical stockpiles directly? it’s the idea that deploying weapons of mass destruction is absolutely unacceptable, even when a regime feels itself in mortal peril from external attack or insurgency. The Israelis – who claim to have intercepted military communications proving that the Syrian army was responsible for this latest chem warfare attack.
Krauthammer: Is ‘Humiliated’ Obama Being ‘Shamed’ Into War?
Britain’s rejection of taking action against the Syrian regime is a “complete humiliation” for President Barack Obama. “Forget about the merits of what Obama wants to do which I think it’s a bad idea. But let’s assume it’s a good idea. This involves the elementary conduct of international diplomacy, trying to get some allies aboard so you don’t act unilaterally. “The other supposed ally was the French, President Hollande, and now he’s saying we got to wait for the report from the U.N. inspectors which will be early next week.” He pointed out that Democrats, including Obama, previously ridiculed the Bush administration for supposedly taking unilateral action in Iraq. “So here is Obama and the Democrats who railed against the Bush administration for its supposedly unilateral invasion of Iraq where we had 48 allies for a mission that involved boots on the ground, a real invasion, a real war. And here’s Obama trying to gather an ally or two for a pinprick and he gets nothing.” In his Washington Post column published earlier Thursday, Krauthammer said the Obama administration was being “shamed into action.” “Want to send a message? Call Western Union. A Tomahawk missile is for killing. A serious instrument of war demands a serious purpose,” Krauthammer explained what in his view would be a better solution.“Depriving Assad of his total control of the air and making resupply from Iran and Russia far more difficult would alter the course of the war. Other members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, have said the administration must have congressional authorization before taking action.
SAVAGE:
Savage also said he isn’t ready to accept alleged evidence the chemical weapons attack cited by Obama came from jihadist rebels rather than the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Israel fears Syria’s air force and would rather have the rag-tag rebels on its northern border than Assad’s regime.
RUSH:
Rush Limbaugh today raised the possibility that Syrian rebels were responsible for using chemical weapons on their own people – not President Bashar al-Assad. Former director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, which claims that the chemical weapons attack was carried out by al Qaida terrorists posing as Syrian rebels – and that the U.S. may have had foreknowledge of the attack.
“There is a growing volume of new evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East – mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its sponsors and supporters – which makes a very strong case, based on solid circumstantial evidence, that the Aug. 21 chemical strike in the Damascus suburbs was indeed a premeditated provocation by the Syrian opposition.“The extent of U.S. foreknowledge of this provocation needs further investigation because available data puts the ‘horror’ of the Barack Obama White House in a different and disturbing light.” To create the situation where we take Bashir out for them because they can’t do it themselves.”
Limbaugh reminded listeners that back in September 2012, Foreign Policy magazine reported that “the U.S. has lost track of some of Syria’s chemical weapons … and does not know if any potentially lethal chemicals have fallen into the hands of Syrian rebels or Iranian forces inside the country.” “I doubt that anybody remembered that Syrian rebels overran and controlled a government base that had chemical weapons last summer,”
“I’m just putting this out as a possibility,” Limbaugh said. “It’s already out there. You know the old saying: ‘We report; you decide.’”

SOURCES: newsmax, Washington post, cathy burke, free beacon, Alexandra ward, fox, nyt, lisa brown, Krauthammer, john Hayward, the blaze, Washington post, drew zahn, savage, wnd, rush, bodansky’s world tribune

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s