President Obama will not launch strike against Syria

[NewsCenter28]

Canada, the UK and France have all said that they will not participate in a military action in the past 24 hours. President Obama, with his anti Iraq-war credentials and plan to withdraw from Afghanistan by 2014, will not be dragged into a unilateral action. I'm sure that he understands the political, economic and military catastrophe that will befall him if he goes it alone.

If you go back to last Friday, in his interview with CNN's Chris Cuomo, on "New Day", you will see his remark "past military interventions haven't gone well that we rushed into" or something like that.

If you look at UN Ambassador Susan Power's of "Hillary Clinton is a monster" fame from 2008, she is an extremely aggressive advocate for humanitarian military intervention and has been for years. I suspect that what happened is she, Biden, and Kerry ganged up on President Obama for military intervention and with the UK and France initially supporting it, President Obama felt compelled to go along. Please recall that President Kennedy's advisors wanted to nuke everything during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 and Kennedy stood alone against them and won.

The fact that President Obama has always said "no decision has been made" along with the fact that the international coalition is now in tatters along with his hatred of war makes me supremely confident that he'll find a tactful way to come down from Defcon 1. I'll be shocked if the US ever gets any more deeply involved in the Syrian crisis than it is today, which is to say it isn't.

[darkangel218]

1. Have you seen the latest napalm attack on a school?

http://mobile.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

I doubt POTUS will not order an attack.

I was against the attack before, not so much now anymore.

Napalm bombs dropped on a school?!? That guy Assad is nothing but a muderer

[David__77]

3. But Islamist insurgents chowing down on Syrian soldiers is A-OK?

I hope you realize that the terrorists have committed a number of well documented crimes.

[darkangel218]

6. Correct.

They're at war. Soldiers kill soldiers.

But WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND DROPS NAPALM BOMBS ON CHILDREN???

Assad did, since the rebels don't posses planes.

That monster needs to go!

[David__77]

8. Al Qaeda agrees, and that's why they're fighting.

...

[darkangel218]

9. Huh???

Look, its a civil war there, I get it.

But dropping napalm bombs on a freaking school is got nil to do with it!!!

Assad is killing inocent children!! Can you aknowledge that much????

[David__77]

10. A lot of children are getting killed.

I wonder who will protect the Christian and Alawite children from al Qaeda and allied terrorists, who openly promise to annihilate them and their families.

[BlueToTheBone]

14. Yes, I saw pictures of a child running down the street

naked with napalm burns on her body. Oh wait, that was in the 70s in Vietnam!

[NewsCenter28]

5. Napalm

Assad is definitely a thug but the other side in the civil war equals his brutality. Also, I don't see how there can be action now with no international coalition intact.

That said, the Napalm act that you mentioned is horrific indeed.

[joshcryer]

7. Hate to break it to you but that sort of thing is happening regularly in Syria.

The alleged 1300 dead from one attack is what caused Obama to make his statements. Not, and I know this is sad to say, but a few dozen killed by a bomb at most.

[David__77]

2. Let's hope not, so he can save his presidency.

Not one bomb or bullet, life, or dollar should be spent on activities that could give aid to terrorists in Syria.

[TwilightGardener]

4. Samantha Power is one who would push for intervention, and I don't trust that

Ben Rhodes guy. Not sure where Susan Rice stands. Very hard to know what Kerry, Biden and Hagel are thinking, because they have to do their jobs of carrying out the Prez's wishes and are loyal, but they would be Obama's more-cautious crew, having all answered to actual voters in their Senate days. That said, Obama only leans on his advisors so much--I think he makes his own judgments, in the end.

[Ghost Dog]

11. But the French Presidency is still willing, I see:

The French president has said a vote by UK MPs against involvement in military strikes on Syria has not changed France's resolve to take firm action.

Francois Hollande said all options were being considered, and that a strike within days was not ruled out.

His comments came after US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel said Washington would continue to seek a coalition for possible military action.

However, Germany said it would not participate in military action...

/... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23897775

Canada Not.

Canada has no plans for a military intervention in Syria but supports its allies who are contemplating forceful action against that country’s regime, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Thursday...

... “Our government has been a very reluctant convert to the idea that there needs to be some western military action regarding the Syrian situation,” he told reporters at an event in Toronto on Thursday.

“At the present time the government of Canada has no plans, we have no plans of our own to have a Canadian military mission.”...

/... http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/08/29/syria_no_canadian_military_mission_planned_stephen_harper_says.html

PARIS — The United States will continue to seek international support for action on Syria, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Friday, a day after the British Parliament surprisingly withheld its support for military action.

“Our approach is to continue to find an international coalition that will act together,” Mr. Hagel said in Manila, the Philippine capital. “And I think you’re seeing a number of countries state, publicly state, their position on the use of chemical weapons.” ...

/... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/syria.html?ref=global-home&_r=0

(No potential candidate countries are mentioned). However:

... .A poll published by Maariv newspaper on Friday showed 77 percent of respondents saying that if Washington decides not to strike Assad's regime Israel should not take unilateral military action.

Eleven percent, however, did think that Israel should launch a strike if nobody else was prepared to do so.

Twelve percent had no opinion according to the poll of 519 people, which had a margin of error of 4.5 percentage points...

/... http://www.france24.com/en/20130830-tel-aviv-gets-missile-defence-amid-syria-fears-media

Meanwhile:

... In Germany, 58 percent of respondents to a ZDF television poll said they remain opposed to military intervention, with 33 percent saying Western powers should strike Syria. France, the United States and Britain have spearheaded calls for military action, but the French public is split, according to two polls which put support for a intervention -- even one with UN backing -- at only 55 or 45 percent. Italy, which served as a launchpad for strikes against Libya in 2011, has taken a backseat, ruling out participation in any military intervention in Syria without a Security Council mandate. In Austria and Spain, politicians and the press urged caution and stressed that no action should be taken before UN inspectors present their evidence... Even Poland, a staunch US ally and major contributor of troops for the US-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, appears opposed to forceful intervention...

/... http://www.france24.com/en/20130829-western-doubts-grow-syria-strike-looms

And:

Ban Ki-moon, the secretary general of the United Nations, cut short a European trip and rushed home on Thursday to prepare for a weekend briefing by his team of chemical weapons inspectors on the ground in Syria. He implored President Obama to refrain from a threatened military strike and to allow the procedures enshrined in the United Nations Charter to take their course.

But Mr. Ban’s efforts to forestall armed intervention by the United States in the affairs of another country, without the permission of the United Nations Security Council, appeared to be having little effect, recalling the frustrations of Mr. Ban’s predecessor, Kofi Annan, 10 years ago in failing to dissuade the Bush administration from attacking Iraq.

Diplomats, former diplomats and legal experts said that if the Obama administration proceeded with an attack on Syria, the effects were likely to reverberate through the United Nations, reinforcing a sense of powerlessness in resolving disputes, in particular those in which one or more superpowers are among the antagonists.

Some said an American military action in Syria, regardless of the merits cited by administration officials, would degrade the credibility of the Security Council, the only internationally recognized institution empowered to authorize force...

/... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/world/middleeast/un-leader-urges-obama-to-hold-off-on-a-strike.html?src=un&feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fjson8.nytimes.com%2Fpages%2Fworld%2Fmiddleeast%2Findex.jsonp

[morningfog]

12. I would be willing to bet he will. This is his war.

I don't see him turning back. No way, not now.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

13. Hope you are right.. But, what is Plan B? How do you back away? How

do you stop them from committing crimes against humanity?