BRIEF COMMENT- CHAIR OF JOINT CHIEFS,OBAMA AT ODDS

CHAIR OF JOINT CHIEFS MAKES SCARY COMMENT, SECRETARY OF STATE KERRY SCARIER.

Recent quote from Chair of Joint Chiefs,  Martin Dempsy, from the New York Times:

"In response, Dempsey listed nearly every military option available, from limited strikes to full-blown US intervention, and found them fraught with risk and expense. He emphasized the difficulty of staying out of the Syrian civil war once Washington launches any military action.

"Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next," Dempsey wrote to the committee on 19 July. "Deeper involvement is hard to avoid."

Today, ironically, in the New York Times, Dempsy is reported to have said that, if there were strikes on Syria, they could not prevent the Assad government from using chemical weapons again.  But in that case, said Dempsy, the military has "additional options."

So, Dempsy predicted that, if the U.S. engaged in strikes on Syria, deeper involvement would be hard to avoid.  At that time, he was opposed to going into Syria.  But now that he has saluted the President and will follow his orders (as he should), he may have to enforce a military policy that he warned against.

Just what are these secret "military options" Dempsey says are available? 

Yesterday, President Obama told Congressional leaders that the strike against Syria would be very limited and not open ended.   Really?  He doesn't agree with his own Joint Chief of Staff that if a strike fails we'll deploy other "military options?"

 

Or maybe Obama is confused.  Maybe he's purposefully misleading the American people?   Today, at a congressional hearing, Secretary of State John Kerry suggested that, in the future, U.S."boots on the ground" might be an option.  Is that the "military option" that Dempsey is talking about? 

 This kind of "leadership" is not what America needs.