Saturday, August 31, 2013

Global SITREP A25-13: Crunch Time?

 Obama will seek congressional approval before any military action against Syria

31 August 2013: Let us pray he means it.  What remains to be seen is how Israel will react to this, and more importantly how the Syrian combatants and Iran respond. 

1 September 2013: I would like to note a trio of pretty important items. 

Number One: According to Foxnews, immediately after the above image was taken and statement was given to the mass media both Obama and Biden went out to play golf at a local course. That's because Congress will not likely address the 'use of force' issue until 9 September (one week from tomorrow). No big rush for Congressional approval and the perfect political face-saving move for Obama.

Number Two: The Al Qaeda jihadists in Syria, specifically Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic State in the Levant (ISIL), have for the most part gone to ground in Syria. According to sources they expect that if U.S. strikes do materialize some of their best units could receive the same ordnance delivered on them as is would be delivered on al-Assad's military Command and Control (C2) infrastructure.

Number Three: The Saudi Arabian lobbyists in Washington Dc and London, England have gone into overdrive. Saudi Arabia has deems it essential to secure both U.S. Congressional approval and a UK Parliamentary re-vote in support of military intervention on Syria. Accordingly, the Saudi's have instructed their lobbyists that should the coming US vote and UK re-vote be lost they can begin the search for a new employer. Pressure will be specifically applied to US Congressmen and UK Parliamentarians in whose districts Saudi-funded contracts or companies with Saudi contracts currently exist that those contracts will expire and/or be defunded immediately should the vote be lost.


hartdawg said...

If obama does indeed seek approval and congress rejects it and he doesn't go in do you think all this will be put on the back burner for a little while longer? I think of the many times before when we were on the edge and God in his sovereign wisdom put back the clock a little longer. I'm wondering if he will do the same this time. I don't think it's ever been like this tho. What's your thinking on this?

Ben D said...

I think he is pulling back, reading between the lines here...

Sean Osborne said...


I absolutely believe we're in the season of the defining pre-70th Week wars. These wars resolve and define the global geo-political and military order of things for the 70th Week (i.e. the 7-year Tribulation, for those who are new to this eschatological terminology).

I posted a blog entry related to this eschatological theme back in June SITREP A14-13 Special Edition which was an outstanding edition of Dr. David Reagan's "Christ in Prophecy TV" The program is a round table with Dr. Reagan, Nathan Jone and Bill Salus. It remains "must see" TV for students of Bible prophecy.

All that said, I believe the Lord's appointed timing is without question a matter of His sovereign will. There is every indication that the literal fulfillment of Isaiah 17 is on the precipice of becoming a reality in the very, very near future. It will set the stage for the flood of related prophetic conflict that follows.

Time, as we understand it, is very short..

Sean Osborne said...


Obama has found himself in the very hard and lonely place noted by the NYT article: he requires three bases of support to strike Syria: Congress, We The People and Foreign allies.

At the present he has neither of the first two, and only the most minimal of the third (i.e. the support of the French).

The only reason the French are in support is due to the former status they had from the League of Nations mandate in control of Syria and Lebanon following the break-up of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. Therefore French support for Obama is entirely self-serving form a political perspective.

mark3210 said...

Honestly, it feels to me like the events of the past 2 weeks have been so unbelievable that it would've been rejected for a Hollywood script.

Who would've ever imagined that the first new US president after 9/11 would be so weak, confused, and incompetent?

If I was in Netanyahu's shoes I would give serious thought to striking Iran now rather than waiting for the enemy to strike the first blow.

Sean Osborne said...


I agree, and it's really saying something to note that there have been some pretty ridiculous and extremely mocking 'end of the world' themed movies coming out of Hollywood of late.

At least Obama has the bona fide alibi of being an ideologically -driven ineffectual incompetent.

Netanyahu has to take the phrase "never again" to heart and do what must be done.

Sean Osborne said...


I understand from a private email i just received today that if Obama should happen to make an 'end run' around Congress without an express vote authorizing "use of force" he most certainly risks immediate impeachment.

This came from former Democrat Congressman Dennis Kucinich who said the following on Friday night's 'Hannity' program on the FoxNews Channel:

"“There is no imminent or actual threat to the United States of America. If there was, then people expect the president to defend us. But in this case the president is going on his own."


"“It’s not ‘I the President,’ it’s ‘We the People of the United States.’"

and, with respect to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, which says only Congress has the power to take America to war...

That’s a fundamental principle and if the president throws that away, disregards that, I think there will be consequences for him.

Yeah, consequences like impeachment for a high crime.

To this, I say... "Hey, Obama, if you're feeling a little froggy over Syria... go ahead and jump."

Drew said...

Have heard that the navy hss extended the deployment of the USS Nimitz carrier group snd has routed them to the western RedSes. Unknown at this time if they intend to transit the Suez Canal. Additionally, the USS San Antonio is deployed now to the eastern med. The San Antonio is a Marine amphibious ship with 300 Marines on board. Apparently the USS Stout, destroyer, is also no on station in the eastern med off the coast of Syria. I don't know but it sounds more to me that these moves are in reaction to something rather than a ramping up for a strike. Anyone know what the Russians navel profile in the easten med is at the moment. I am spending much time in prayer about this situation at the moment. Beceaching God for his mercy, and praying for his will to be done, amd that whatever hppens, He would be glorified.

hartdawg said...

As much as I'd like to see obama impeached, I doubt even he is so arrogant and stupid as to risk it. I think that's why the about face on his part. Just my opinion

Sean Osborne said...


Here is the comment I posted in SITREP A22-13 (one week ago as of today) regarding our naval forces posture in the Middle East.

" of today, 26 August 2013, there are two (2) U.S. Navy Carrier Strike Groups (CSGs) in the Middle East region.

They are the CVN-68 Nimitz and CVN-75 Harry S. Truman.

Both should be in the Arabian Sea at this point based upon data that is now a week old.

Both CSGs are in a position to react to any Iranian military moves, and either or both both could be in a position for Syrian operations if a transit to the northern Red Sea were to occur.

The most likely of the two for this possibility would be the Nimitz CSG. Its air wing could strike Syria and land for refueling in Turkey and then rejoin the Nimitz after she has transited the Suez Canel into the Eastern Mediterranean Sea.

August 26, 2013 at 2:45 PM

The above was obvious to me one week ago due to the fact that CVN-75 Truman was already launching its embarked CVW-3 air wing on OEF missions as a part of 5th FLT.

In military crises, such as the Syrian situation presents, determining the location of our CSGs is always the first thing I will do, and I do this by monitoring the US Navy's CV location webpage and updating a magnetic wall map I maintain with little magnets representing our CVNs (Nimitz-class nuclear aircraft carriers).