Every problem in the Middle East must look like a nail to some neoconservatives because they always want to bring out the big hammer of the U.S. military. That was the case today on Fox News when Jonathan Schanzer, the vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracy, wondered why President Obama would call for Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad to “step aside” without holding a threat of military attack over his head:

What I don’t really understand from this administration is its insistence that we take force off the table right now. I think that is the one thing that could coerce the Syrian regime — and could certainly coerce Assad to step down — is the fear of getting involved militarily. I’m not saying we have to follow through on it, but to say it’s off the table means that any threat we put out there won’t be taken seriously.

Watch the video:

Schanzer’s lack of understanding is puzzling considering that Obama himself said explicitly in his statement exactly why he was taking military force off the table:

It is up to the Syrian people to choose their own leaders, and we have heard their strong desire that there not be foreign intervention in their movement.

This was backed up by a senior administration official, who said this morning on a call with reporters:

I don’t think anybody believes [military intervention] is the desired course in Syria — not the U.S. and our allies nor the Syrian people themselves.

Over the past several months, including in meetings with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Syrian opposition activists have called for political and diplomatic support from foreign governments while explicitly warning against a foreign military intervention.

Just last week, a Syrian activist told an independent Arabic news outlet:

We are dependent on the mercy of God and the strength of the Syrian people. We refuse foreign intervention.

In the meeting with Clinton, U.S.-based Syrian opposition activists “unanimously refuse(d) any kind of military intervention in Syria and believe that Syrian people themselves are the ones to determine their future.”

In June, the Washington Times reported that “Syrian protesters are urging their colleagues in the West to oppose calls for foreign military intervention.”

Tea Party activists are calling on the “super committee” tasked with finding $1.5 trillion in budget cuts to make sure that the Pentagon’s budget remains on the table. “Nothing should be sacred, and everything needs to be evaluated and cut as much as it can be,” said Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of Tea Party Patriots.

Not only has war hawk John Bolton been trying to make his case that that the super committee should leave military spending untouched, he says Congress should increase the Pentagon’s budget — even at the expense of Medicare, Social Security, and veterans’ health and retirement benefits. So today in the Washington Times, Bolton hit back at the Tea Party, urging them to “make clear” that the debt deal “undermines defense.” He tries to convince the Tea Party that the real problem is entitlements:

It makes no sense to put our military on the chopping block when any objective analysis shows the real culprit is entitlement spending. The Heritage Foundation predicts that between 2010 and 2015, total defense spending will fall from 4.9 percent to 3.6 percent of gross domestic product. Meanwhile, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid surpassed defense spending in 1976 and have grown unchecked since. These three programs alone risk completely crowding out the government’s primary constitutional obligation: defending our country.

Bolton’s reference to defense spending as a percentage of GDP is completely irrelevant in this debate. And maybe Bolton doesn’t consider Bloomberg News “objective analysis” because just last month, they ran a story reporting that, in addition to the recession, the “real culprit” of American debt is the Bush tax cuts, along with the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and President Bush’s Medicare prescription drug plan:

Together, a Bloomberg News analysis shows, these initiatives added $3.4 trillion to the nation’s accumulated debt and to its current annual budget deficit of $1.5 trillion. [...]

“There’s plenty of blame to go around,” for the debt, said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, an Arlington, Virginia-based group that advocates for balanced budgets. “If there had been no Barack Obama, we would still be bumping up against the debt limit.’”

But those factors are just the main debt drivers. Bolton conveniently omits the fact that military spending has nearly doubled in the last 10 years, is higher than at any point since World War II, and the cuts he claims will result in a “hollowed-out military” will actually just bring DOD back to 2007 spending levels. U.S. military spending accounts for 43 percent of the world’s total, and the U.S. spends six times more than China, Iran, and North Korea combined. Thus, the U.S. can afford cuts to military spending in order to rein in the debt and deficit.

This morning, President Obama issued his harshest statement yet about the violence against civilians in Syria, saying, “For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.” The statement from the White House included an announcement of sweeping new sanctions designed to “deepen the financial isolation of the Assad regime.” The newly announced sanctions, implemented through executive order, were described by Obama:

I have signed a new Executive Order requiring the immediate freeze of all assets of the Government of Syria subject to U.S. jurisdiction and prohibiting U.S. persons from engaging in any transaction involving the Government of Syria. This E.O. also bans U.S. imports of Syrian-origin petroleum or petroleum products; prohibits U.S. persons from having any dealings in or related to Syria’s petroleum or petroleum products; and prohibits U.S. persons from operating or investing in Syria.

Also in the statement today, Obama “cannot and will not impose this transition upon Syria. It is up to the Syrian people to choose their own leaders.” Secretary of State Hillarly Clinton reiterated Obama’s stance in a statement to the press this morning:

CLINTON: The transition to democracy in Syria has begun and it’s time for Assad to get out of the way. As President Obama said this morning, no outside power can or should impose on this transition. It is up to the Syrian people to choose their own leaders in a democratic system based on the rule of law and dedicated to protecting the rights of all citizens regardless of ethnicity, religion, sect or gender. We understand the strong desire of the Syrian people that no foreign country should intervene in their struggle and we respect their wishes. At the same time, we will do our part to support their aspirations for a Syria that is democratic, just and inclusive.

Watch it: