Two quick pointers - Asia times and Obama's "sissy on steroids" option

First, yet another great piece by By M K Bhadrakumar in which he outlines the sequence of Kerry gaffes this week in an article entitled "Kerry becomes first war casualty".  I highly recommend it - great read!

Makes me wonder: what is "wrong" with the Asia Times?!  How can a corporate newspaper publish such top notch authors like M K Bhadrakumar and Pepe Escobar?!  Well, whatever the reason, may they live long and prosper \\//_

Then, I did not listen to Obama tonight.  He makes me sick.  But I read the transcript.  And I noticed this part:

I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective, deterring the use of chemical weapons and degrading Assad's capabilities.

Others have asked whether it's worth acting if we don't take out Assad. Now, some members of Congress have said there's no point in simply doing a pinprick strike in Syria.

Let me make something clear: The United States military doesn't do pinpricks. Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad that no other nation can deliver.

Interesting statement.  Besides the dumb macho "we don't do pinpricks" (which of course they have done many many times), I would summarize his words as follows: more then a single volley of missiles (as the "pinprick" attack on the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory), less than Libya or Kosovo.  Something like a "sissy option on steroids".  Typical Obama, no?  But the key thing is here: not a "regime change" attack, not a "civil war defining" attack, not even a "bailing out the insurgency attack".  That, in turn, means that the US does not have the stomach to take on Hezbollah and Iran.

Good.  Very good!

The Saker