Obama: Syria Strike Would Be 'Shot Across Bow'

[David__77]

Source: Sky News

...

He added that the US had not yet made a decision about how to respond.

"If we are saying in a clear and decisive but very limited way, we send a shot across the bow saying, stop doing this, this can have a positive impact on our national security over the long term," the President said in a televised interview.

President Obama was asked what would be the strategic rationale behind a US attack, given its limited scope.

He said that by the end of the engagement, the Syrian government "will have received a pretty strong signal that it better not do it again."

...



Read more: http://news.sky.com/story/1134402/obama-syria-strike-would-be-shot-across-bow

---

Shot across the bow meaning: "A warning shot (in nautical terms, often called a shot across the bow) is a harmless artillery shot or gunshot intended to call attention and demand some action."

So Obama wants a harmless response to the alleged chemical attack allegedly launched by government forces. Sounds like the right path is diplomacy, not missiles.

[pangaia]

1. All I can say is-- oh bull shit.

Shot across the bow.. Who thought that one up?
It's a damn missile attack. It ain't across nobody's 'bow.'

Oh- David.. My missile isn't aimed at you but at Obama's statement....
Thanks for posting it...

[warrant46]

23. How about a "Shot across the Bow" to provide a few jobs ?

Oh wait we have to feed the poor MIC first

[pangaia]

25. But, but. but..

The military in and of itself DOES create jobs. So I overheard at breakfast in a restaurant yesterday morning.

[warrant46]

26. Those you overheard should immediately rush to the Marine Recruiter

And enlist to be Combat Trained.

That way they could actually JOIN in the jobs recovery program.

[Divernan]

2. They don't want no stinkin' diplomacy! Where's the profit in that?!?!

A shot across the bow, as you correctly defined it, is harmless to both people and property. So is Obama guaranteeing no loss of life, let alone the ever-popular with the MIC apologists, "collateral damage"?

I find O's use of that phrase as condescendingly insulting as his analogy to whether Michelle would believe him if he said he did the dishes.

[David__77]

4. I know.

If there are any civilian deaths from these "slaps on the wrist," they would appropriately be captioned "OBAMA'S SHOT ACROSS THE BOW." I think this term should be well-remembered. He said it today, and it means something.

[another_liberal]

7. He's listening to his generals again.

You know, like when he listened to them and decided to send thirty thousand more troops to Afghanistan. The generals want a new war worse than they want just about anything in the world.

[Arctic Dave]

3. I'm thinking the so called "proof" is starting to unravel.

Maybe the people who reported it weren't as truthful with their assertions of who was the guilty party.

[David__77]

6. I'm thinking that Obama was not so hot on all this to begin with.

There's this uber-pro-war faction in the white house and another faction that's more part of the reality-based community. Obama loves consensus - too much so. But he's got to walk this thing back. My hope is that this is a step in that direction; otherwise, there will be terrible consequences.

[another_liberal]

8. If the President goes through with this attack . . .

I am really afraid that if the President goes through with this attack, the fallout may cost Democrats the 2014 election and their majority in the Senate. That would be one hell of a price for his supporters to pay.

[David__77]

9. You have tons of Republicans asking for a vote on this in congress.

And a few Democrats, but far too few. By launching missiles, the US will "own" how Syria turns out, hence the inexorable logic of more and more intervention will kick in. Then you're mired in a sectarian struggle playing out across the Muslim countries. Al Qaeda is central in all this, for good measure. Republicans will have a field day. Most Americans want nothing to do with this, progressives will feel betrayed, and there could be blowback sooner than later, aside from the possibility of dead servicemen/servicewomen, hostages, etc.

[another_liberal]

10. I don't know what to add.

You covered the whole potential disaster quite succinctly. If only the President can find the wisdom to relent . . .

[GeorgeGist]

12. Then maybe he shouldn't have lit Kerry's hair on fire ...

and sent him out in public.

[David__77]

13. Agreed, to the extent that was the case.

But even in the old Soviet Union, some officials would slip in their own personal viewpoints when relaying the "party line." The gossip in the media (presumably based on purposely planted or security breach) "leaks," is that Kerry wanted the US to actively facilitate regime change in Syria - a view different from Obama's. It could be that he went off "party line" to some extent. Or, worse yet, it could be that there is no "party line," and we are dealing with a totally undisciplined bunch.

[Laelth]

27. Very informative series of posts from you. Thanks. n/t

-Laelth

[another_liberal]

5. If the "shot across the bow" is not a cruise missile exploding on Syrian territory, yeah maybe.

If, however, we attack Syrian targets, killing and injuring Syrian personnel, that is an act of war. Once that happens, all talk of shots across bows is mere wishful nonsense.

[Celefin]

11. It would be an act of war

And no amount of pretty language will change it.
He's beginning to sound a lot less hawkish though... there might be some hope that they don't release the genie.
At least for now.
Fingers crossed.

[PatrynXX]

14. shot across the bow

can also mean hitting a ship without sinking it... which is what I see here. perhaps he'll hit wherever the nerve stockpile is.

[David__77]

15. There is no single stockpile, for one thing.

And they already said that they would NOT target those stockpiles, which could cause serious problems.

[joshcryer]

17. Sounds like he's following Clark's advice.

Hit radar facilities, radio facilities, as opposed to the factories themselves.

[David__77]

18. What's the objective there? To degrade control of the chemical weapons?

To make it more likely that they are used by rogue elements?

[joshcryer]

19. I can't find Clark's justification.

I think he said something to the effect of that it would make the regime think twice about using the weapons again.

Note: you already said that the weapons were used by rouge elements, so let's not have it both ways. Let's say you're right that rouge elements have already got the weapons. Destroying their infrastructure would compel the Syrian government to crack down hard to re-acquire access to those weapons.

[David__77]

20. I have no idea.

How could I know this? And how could you know it would have that effect? Let's just stay the hell out of it.

[joshcryer]

21. A hard crack down is not a desirable effect.

I do think we should stay the hell out of it.

[PaulKersey]

16. limited strike = regime change

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

29. limited strike = act of war.

[tom_kelly]

22. "our national security over the long term."

He had to get out in front of the media and throw the "national security" threat out there so people think he is authorized to order an attack on his own.

[blkmusclmachine]

24. Q: How can one be a war hawk and keep his/her alleged base clueless to it?

[SHRED]

28. When Obama holds the Bush administration ...

...accountable or it's war crimes and Wall St accountable for their crimes against our economy, then and only then will I take his moral pontificating/outrage regarding Syria seriously


--

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

30. Hey Shred. I haven't seen you in a while.

I agree with everything you have written.

[SHRED]

31. Thanks

[jsr]

32. Gotta send a clear message

[tblue]

34. The last frame of that cartoon

That may be how he is remembered. I hope he knows that.

[Nihil]

33. Obama: Syria Strike Would Be "a shot across the bow"

Hey Obama? You use that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.