The REAL Reason Obama is Seeking Congressional Approval on Syria...

We're back from Labor Day break so you're not reading a repeat from last week.. We start this posting with a John Kerry quote care of the Weekly Standard, Dec 21, 2011:

~ John and Teresa Kerry dine with the Assads (pic taken in 2010)

"Well, I personally believe that -- I mean, this is my belief, okay? But President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had. 

And when I last went to -- the last several trips to Syria -- I asked President Assad to do certain things to build the relationship with the United States and sort of show the good faith that would help us to move the process forward,"

There's been a lot of talk over Labor Day about the latest dance craze known as the Obama Two-Step; talking with such Bush-like bravado then backing down to seek Congressional approval..

(From AFP, Dec 20, 2011:   "President Barack Obama's administration considers Syria a key player in Washington's efforts to revive the stalled Middle East peace process...  Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region, said John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said in a speech after meeting President Bashar al-Assad.

‘Both the United States and Syria have a very deep interest... in having a very frank exchange on any differences (and) agreements that we have about the possibilities of peace in this region,’")

Obama been teased and mocked both by allies and enemies alike..

We've been very upfront on this: We do not want to see the US military drawn into a Syrian civil war where BOTH sides are evil and despicable to the core (Assad backed by Iran and Russia, & the rebels backed by terrorist group Al Qaida)

Unlike Iraq this could very well explode into something horrific world-wide if Russia sends its military into Syria in response..

So as much as the war-hawks and the cable news programmers were peeved not to have exciting missile explosions to entertain the audiences this Labor Day weekend, we're grateful there's been no attack to this point..

So why the President's change in heart?   Really..  Why?

Was it conscious?   Did US military lives suddenly mean something?

Did the President realize he was way over his head and way out of his depth?

Did the academic in him feel this patriotic surge and actually do what the Constitution says; to consult the Congress on matters of war for approval?

Possibly Maybe..  Probably Not..

As the rappers would say, its all about the 'Benjamins' i.e. $$

Many who call Obama a 'coward' because he didn't yet bomb Syria are upset because they hate Israel and want to see it gassed & ultimately destroyed as response to our involvement over there...

So we will say very directly for this and other reasons, that Assad is not a good man and we don't like him..  We just hate al Qaida more..

Continuing..  Allow us to explain something NO other media outlet anywhere has expressed honestly and openly to the people:

The U.S. military, struggling after defense cuts of tens of billions of dollars, will be unable to pay for attacks on Syria from current operating funds and are Forced to seek additional money from Congress..

Estimates of  a limited-duration strike not requiring 'boots to be placed on the ground' are expected to be At Minimum in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated in a July 19 letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee, that larger-scale military operations would cost hundreds of millions or potentially Billions, depending on the number of forces and the duration of the operations.

For example, training and assisting Syrian opposition forces would cost $500 million annually and “limited” standoff missile and air strikes would cost in the “billions.”

Operating a no-fly zone would cost about $1 billion per month, and the cost of using special operations forces to control chemical weapons would be “over” $1 billion monthly.

So just using very rough math, if we established a presence in Syria for a mere 4 months, it would cost around $8 - 10 Billion at minimum...   Iraq was supposed to be a short engagement..   Ten years and counting..

Pentagon leaders hve expressed that unlike the 2011 military operations against Libya, there are not enough operating funds to conduct the attack on Syria.

The administration during the first term cut $487 billion from defense spending and another $55 billion under congressional sequestration legislation. An additional $55 billion is slated to be cut next year.

You add those numbers, and you get $597 Billion cut from defense spending..  Close to 6/10ths of $1 Trillion dollars..

Ironically the government magically has the means to raise military salaries..

From Washington Post:

"A Senate committee approved a funding bill this month that includes a 1 percent increase for civilian and military personnel, as recommended by the White House."

That ought to lift morale!

Last April, under questioning from Rep. Mike Conaway (R., Texas) at a House Armed Services Committee hearing April 11, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said that if U.S. military action is taken in Syria,  “It's pretty clear that a supplemental funding would be required.”

So there you have it..

Obama is not going before Congress because he wants to or feels he needs to..

He is going before Congress because he HAS to..

And don't forget there's other financial considerations on the table..  Last week the President proposed raising the debt ceiling by $1.2 Trillion..

This specific 'can' can't be kicked any longer.. Mid-late October, the ceiling must be raised or else everything gets cut to ensure the creditor payments to China and the Fed continue..

And where will the fight be taking place over these funds?

The same Capitol Hill that is supposed to decide on Obama's legality on attacking Syria

Britain's Parliament last week gave their PM David Cameron a proper comeuppance by denying him power to intervene in Syria, the first time a PM was rebuffed on a military consideration since the late 1700's...

We hope Congress will do the same then put an end to this madness..

Of course the President can still do what he wants..  Acting alone sure didn't deter LBJ or Nixon in Vietnam nor George W Bush after 9/11

Besides.. who wants the will of the people behind them??  That's just Sooo FDR-like...   And what President really needs a coalition of other nations to give moral and political legitimacy?   That is just soo Bush Sr-like..

C'mon Dudes & Dudettes..  This is the 21st Century!!

None of that need apply in the modern nation-state...  Just have some people sit in front of computers in a safe bunker somewhere and lob tomahawk missiles and predator drones at whoever pester us...

If the President can either get his funding or figure how to adjust his defense budget to pay for this war, he will attack Syria even after Congress say no..  It's just how he rolls..

And if there's no funding, then there's no war.. for now..

In politics.. In war..  In life...  It always is about the money..