See here: "The USS Nimitz aircraft carrier is moving westward toward the Red Sea, although it has not yet received orders to support a potential US strike on Syria." Perhaps the warship is secretly staffed by next-generation robot seamen. Otherwise, when I read that "the nuclear-powered carrier was set to head back to its home port in Everett, Wash., after a months-long deployment to the Arabian Sea when it reportedly received orders to stay in the area," I can only presume that American military personnel are both being kept away from home and put in more harm's way than they'd be in Washington State because of the Obama Administration's decision to keep open the possibility of waging war on Syria.
As Peter Beinart explains, a strike on Syria wouldn't even come directly from the Nimitz:
“War,” wrote Carl von Clausewitz, “is nothing but a duel on an extensive scale.” It is “an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will.” By that classic, and noncontroversial, definition, what the Obama administration is contemplating in Syria is absolutely war. If it wins congressional authorization (and perhaps even if it doesn’t), the United States will reportedly strike Syria with Tomahawk missiles launched from destroyers and submarines in the Mediterranean Sea. Each Tomahawk carries a single 1,000-pound bomb or 166 smaller cluster bombs.
Who will operate these destroyers and submarines? Hessian mercenaries? Is Kerry able to summon the Dead Men of Dunharrow? Or will Americans be there?
Beinart goes on:
The United States is reportedly considering launching several hundred Tomahawk missiles against various Syrian military units and installations. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has acknowledged that “there is a probability for collateral damage.” The Obama administration, in other words, is planning to kill and maim an unspecified number of Syrians in order to deter Bashir al-Assad from again using chemical weapons or to uphold the credibility of a potential American military strike against Iran. That’s war.
So how can Kerry say it’s not? Because the ships launching the Tomahawks will be far from Syria, and thus apparently impervious to Syrian retaliation. War, in other words, is what happens when other nations kill Americans, not the other way around.
Adding to the absurdity of Kerry's position is his previous statement that the United States faces a "Munich moment" in Syria. That analogy that never made much sense, but that makes even less sense when the person who is making it then insists that he isn't calling for war. I guess Neville Chamberlain's Britain needn't have declared classical war against the Nazis, just "degraded their capacities," like the Japanese did to us at Pearl Harbor, where they didn't put "boots on the ground."
Trying to fool Americans into thinking you're not trying to take the country to war when you plainly are is among the more disgraceful things a secretary of state can do, and Kerry is discrediting himself by doing so. And it's telling that he initially declined to commit the Obama Administration to never putting any boots on the ground, saying it could conceivably come to that if Syria descended into chaos and the U.S. had to secure its stocks of chemical weapons.
Make no mistake: What's being decided is whether America will be at war in Syria. Whatever you think ought to be done, that is the question now before Congress. And the fact that the Obama Administration won't acknowledge the truth is telling.