Lee Smith of the Weekly Standard magazine wrote an article
that shows two things. First, the writer was seized by an intense and sudden
desire to hurt the image of President Obama for some obscure reason. Second, he
did not have the material to do it with; therefore did a poor job hurting
Obama, and managed instead to hurt himself in the process as well as hurt the
standing of the magazine.
The article he wrote came under the title: “Barack Obama's
Options,” published on October 3, 2016 in the Weekly Standard. It is a
compilation of what several observers and operatives talked about, all of whom
seem to agree that America has no good option in Syria. And if you want to know
what good option means, you find a definition of it in the article. It goes
something like this: “What is required to secure interests, protect allies, and
maintain national prestige”.
As to his own point of view on the subject, Smith attacks
the White House for insisting that “there is no military solution in Syria.”
This is due, he says, to Obama wanting “peace and no options.” And this is why
Smith kinda likes John Kerry's position of making “some credible threat of
military force – not, of course, to force the Russians to bend to American
power.” But what he likes even more is the saying that goes like this: “There
are times when the only option is force”.
If you piece all this together, trying to understand what
Lee Smith, the Weekly Standard and the movement they represent are asking
America to do, you come up with this construct: Set a deadline for the
implementation of a specific demand. Threaten force if the demand is ignored.
Move American forces around to make your threat look credible. If the demand is
not met, carry on with the threat and damn the consequences. But if the
consequences mean war with Russia, and you don't want that anymore than we do,
pretend that the demand was met even if it wasn't, and walk away tail between
your legs.
What this means in effect, is that the people of the
movement – whomever they are now and whatever their movement has come to
represent – have not contributed a single workable idea that the White House
can use alone or in conjunction with other ideas. The threat to use force, as
they suggest, will lead to the war they want to avoid, or will prove to be the
bluff that will most certainly be called by the other side no matter how weak
it is compared to America.
To wit, the Vietcong, the Taliban, Saddam and ISIS told
America to take a hike and were punished as hard as America could hit them, but
they did not perish. This alone made them winners, and so will everyone who
will be threatened and/or punished by America ever again. However, the
consequences for America will be as bad as they have been since the superpower
came under the influence of the Jews, and started to mess up the world under
their guidance.
Why has America been defeated in every war of consequence it
has had since the Second World War? And why will America be defeated again and
again? The answer is that contrary to popular belief, power is not the
paramount factor determining who wins a prolonged encounter. Rather, it is the
relationship that each antagonist has with power. If you are weak but a rising
power, you stand a good chance to defeat a strong power that's on the decline.
That's because war will stimulate a rising power and make it strive for
excellence. On the other hand, war will demoralize a declining power and will
send it into a downward spiral.
A stark example of this has been the story of an America
that came out of the Second World War with a moral authority that could only be
described in astronomical superlatives. It stumbled into an encounter with Iran
of the Third World, and could have ironed out the differences but for the fact
that the Jews got involved in the affair and made a mess of it.
The Jews kept the dispute going to serve their interests and
those of Israel, resulting in Iran rising in stature to the point of poking its
finger in the eye of a Superpower that had reached its zenith and was now in
relative decline compared to the superpowers in the making that surround it.
So while there are no options left for America to take and
restore its moral authority, there are lessons that America must learn or risk
declining not only in relative terms but in absolute terms as well.
Among these are two important lessons. One, never again
threaten someone militarily, economically or diplomatically or you'll someday
be treated in that same fashion. Two, never again take Jewish advice no matter
how good it sounds.