and the president has said it is not about getting rid of assad. they fear what might come after assad. he gets that, right? yeah, i think he gets that. but he also understands that once it happens all bets are off. he made that point very clear. but he also the people who short him all fear what will happen if if falls, they are worried about being slaughtered. who gets the chemical weapons if he is gone. if your primary concern is controlling the chemical wells, it s better for assad to win. he seems to have some kind of control over them. and that s why the russian idea of sequestering these things and destroying them.
on the line. throughout the whole region, there is a strong sense they are running for the exits. not just because of what happened over the last week, sequestering, a host of things, the absolute reluctance to get involved. they created an impression throughout the region the u.s. is an undepersonalble ally and the first priority has to be to correct that. what did you say today? i agree with what mike duran said. i think we shifted to some extent. we have begun to show greater faith in the opposition in this rebellion. you could hear it in secretary of state kerry. all of a sudden, he s now talking about the fact the syrian opposition is broadly conserved fact, you re saying the u.s. see as more moderate shift. absolutely, all of a sudden right, that surprised me.
sensing a shift in terms of what the operation would be targeting. do you sense that, as well? i sense a shift i shift of rhetoric. i m not sure it s a shift of strategy. mccain and gram demanded more support for the opposition, and so, president obama began speaking about degrading and not just destroying capability, and that s all well and good but we really need a paradigm shift in the white house. it s important that this attack be carried out. i agree with what kirk said. there has got to be some concept of follow on and concern about it but america s credibility is on the line. throughout the whole region, there is a strong sense they are running for the exits. not just because of what happened over the last week, sequestering, a host of things, the absolute reluctance to get involved.
between the executive and the legislative branches, to come to grips, what are we going to be in the 21st century, what is america s role. as a military man, that impacts directly our military. we ve just come out of two wars. you know, we ve been tasked to rebuild societies that are still in the 9th or 18th century in our image. we re suffering through sequestering. we re getting new missions, pivoting in the pacific and everything else. our military wants to know, what do you want us to be, and will you give us the capability to be that? chris, you think launching military operations against syria would be reckless and counterproductive for the united states. why? because i think the military mission has not been very well articulated, and the leading advocates for intervention, the hawks, if you will, are very explicit on this point. they do not want the mission to be limited. they understand the american people are overwhelmingly opposed to a war, especially a war that may spir
legislative branches, to come to grips, what are we going to be in the 21st century, what is america s role. as a military man, that impacts directly our military. we ve just come out of two wars. you know, we ve been tasked to rebuild societies that are still in the 9th or 18th century in our image. we re suffering through sequestering. we re getting new missions, pivoting in the pacific and everything else. our military wants to know, what do you want us to be, and will you give us the capability to be that? chris, you think launching military operations against syria would be reckless and counterproductive for the united