This whole thing really bothers me because I see it as a political move, not a security for an ally. I find it odd that come at almost the same time Gates came out and said, basically, Obama used US troops as political pawns. I have to wonder if professor Sick is a friend of Schumer since his conclusion seems to make no sense. It seems to me knowing in advance what will happen to US troops if they are committed makes it almost impossible for them to be used since I'm sure public opinion would be strongly against it. I have other questions, though:
1. If the middle east diplomacy of Lurch is working so well, why is this even a consideration - publicly?
2. Obama has done absolutely nothing for Israel, so why would Schumer write a bill which Obama would be likely to veto? - unless
3. Schumer discussed this with Obama prior to submitting it. If so, why would Obama tell him to go ahead? - perhaps
4. Obama might use this to make it look like he cares about the military by refusing to commit them?
5. Schumer knows this will pass the senate but likely die in the house. Could this be another political maneuver by the administration with the military as pawns to give
the appearance democrats care about the military and republicans don't?
This whole thing has the stench of a swamp.