First of all, we should not bomb Syria.
There are a whole host of reasons we shouldn’t, beginning with the fact that Syria has virtually nothing to do with America’s national interest. In using chemical weapons against their own people, they did nothing that would threaten American security. If that isn’t enough, let’s point out the fact that Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry keep referring to “international norms.” There’s a reason they do that; namely, because there is actually no violation of “international LAW.” No nation that signed the treaty on chemical weapons is required to take military action against violators. And Syria did not sign that treaty anyway. Third, do you know which country WOULD be violating international law if Obama got his way? That’s right – the United States of America. The Secretary General of the United Nations has already stated categorically that our bombing of Syria would be illegal under international law.
Now, having stated those three problems for bombing Syria, let me continue pointing out still MORE problems with bombing Syria. What is our specific goal? None has been clearly (or actually even rather vaguely) stated. A limited attack that would leave Bashar al-Assad in power would do nothing to dissuade him and would be just as emboldening to him as if we did nothing. If he was still in power the day after the attack – and Obama has repeatedly assured the world Assad would still be in power – Assad would take to the airwaves and boast that he had withstood everything America could throw at him and he still remained to defy them. The act of American imperialist aggression might literally even HELP Assad by rallying Arabs against the Great Satan. Vietnam should survive as a lesson for us: if we’re going to go to war, “limited” is a bad word. Either we need to utterly overwhelm with no restrictions and nothing off-limits, or we need to shut up and stay home. But there’s more: what if our strike actually DID topple Assad? Who would take over the country? Al Qaeda, that’s who. We can argue what percentage of fighters are radical al Qaeda soldiers, but the bottom line – that we have already learned the hard way in Egypt – is that the al Qaeda-types are better organized and would swiftly take over in any power vacuum the same way that the Muslim Brotherhood did. Do you remember Obama assuring us that the Muslim Brotherhood could NOT take over in Egypt? Well, he did (as I documented here):
Mr. Obama downplayed concerns that the Muslim Brotherhood could take power and install a government hostile to U.S. interests.
“I think that the Muslim Brotherhood is one faction in Egypt. They don’t have majority support in Egypt but they are well-organized and there are strains of their ideology that are anti U.S., there is no doubt about it,” Mr. Obama said.
Mr. Obama said he wanted a representative government in Egypt that reflected the country’s broader civil society.
And he was wrong then and he would be every bit as wrong now. Toppling Assad almost definitely equals installing al Qaeda in his place and going from awful to even worse than awful. We simply cannot afford more of Obama’s terrible mistakes that persistently derive from his ignorance and his failed world view.
If that isn’t enough, we face a Gulf of Tonkin moment all over again here. What happens if Obama attacks Syria and Syria responds by using one or more of their Russian-provided state-of-the-art anti-ship missiles to sink a U.S. warship??? That’s right, thanks to Russia, Syria has state-of-the-art missiles that could easily sink one of our warships and drag us into a war that will cost us everything and benefit us nothing. Would Obama just crawl away, or would we be in an endless Vietnam all over again? If you’re going to tell me, “Syria wouldn’t DARE fight back while we were bombing them!”, well, you’re just nuts.
Iran is planning “revenge attacks” against the United States if we attack Syria. What will Obama do about those attacks that he invited?
If you study Vietnam, what you learn is that LBJ kept setting “red lines” hoping that the North Vietnamese wouldn’t cross them, and they kept crossing them. And every time they crossed one of those lines, LBJ felt compelled to crawl deeper into Vietnam.
It is frankly amazing to me that the same liberals who were the most frantic in their opposition to that war and other wars since are now the most loyal to Obama out of nothing short of fascist messiah-following loyalty.
Just in case you think that’s just some random token Democrat, try House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Think of her utterly reprehensible actions back in 2007 in the new light of today:
Pelosi shrugs off Bush’s criticism, meets Assad
Democrat raises issues of Mideast peace, Iraq with Syrian president
updated 4/4/2007 9:28:36 AM ET
DAMASCUS, Syria — U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday for talks criticized by the White House as undermining American efforts to isolate the hard-line Arab country. [...]
“We were very pleased with the assurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process. He’s ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel,” Pelosi said. [...]
Pelosi’s visit to Syria was the latest challenge to the White House by congressional Democrats, who are taking a more assertive role in influencing policy in the Middle East and the Iraq war.
Bush voices criticism
Bush has said Pelosi’s trip signals that the Assad government is part of the international mainstream when it is not. The United States says Syria allows Iraqi Sunni insurgents to operate from its territory, backs the Hezbollah and Hamas militant groups and is trying to destabilize the Lebanese government. Syria denies the allegations.
“A lot of people have gone to see President Assad … and yet we haven’t seen action. He hasn’t responded,” he told reporters soon after she arrived in Damascus on Tuesday. “Sending delegations doesn’t work. It’s simply been counterproductive.”
Pelosi did not comment on Bush’s remarks but went for a stroll in the Old City district of Damascus, where she mingled with Syrians in a market.
Wearing a flowered head scarf and a black abaya robe, Pelosi visited the 8th-century Omayyad Mosque. She made the sign of the cross in front of an elaborate tomb which is said to contain the head of John the Baptist. About 10 percent of Syria’s 18 million people are Christian.
Now this googly-eyed moral idiot is singing a different tune, of course. And of course now she’s siding with her messiah-Führer and agreeing that it wasn’t Obama who set any red lines, but “humanity.” You see, Obama’s lips were only mouthing what the entire human race collectively said all at the same time. It was beautiful, actually, Obama speaking for us all.
Nancy Pelosi is morally insane. There is no other way to put it. Bush knew Assad for the monster he was; but not the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Nope, complete moral idiot.
Just like abject moral idiot John Kerry.
Just like complete and utter moral fool Hillary Clinton.
Notice that Barack Obama handpicked two terrorist mass-murderer-loving radical extremists to be his Secretaries of State. What are the odds that BOTH of Obama’s Secretaries of State – his highest foreign policy officials – would speak so kindly and well and fawn so deeply over a monster??? I’d say about 100 percent, when you understand what an America-hating radical Obama truly is.
Please don’t be a damn lemming.
Here’s the bottom line: Obama has been pushing for this strike against Syria for no other reason than he gave his “red line” statement and Syria crossed it (FOURTEEN TIMES!!!). And Obama looks weak because he stuck his foot in his mouth all the way up to where his brain was supposed to be. Nobody seriously doubts that. Had Obama NOT given his “red line,” he would not be pushing the world, Congress, and literally invoking the world in an effort to attack Syria any more than he was when they were murdering the other 119,000 of their own people that have perished these last two years. And no, I don’t believe we should go to war to defend Obama’s shattered credibility.
Obama’s line -
- is nothing short of pure rhetorical bovine feces. Because, no, Obama, YOU DID set a red line. And you specifically said:
“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”
Your calculus. Your equation. YOUR RED LINE.
Again, THE WORLD DID NOT SET ANY RED LINES. The international treaties do NOT call for signatories to attack countries that use chemical weapons; nor did Syria even SIGN any treaties regarding chemical weapons. The only “international criminals” would be Obama and the America he dragged into war.
Now the Obama who first blamed Bush for everything until Republicans took over the House when he started blaming THEM for everything is literally blaming the WORLD for everything. So now ”earth” knows what it’s like to be the victim of Obama’s demagoguery where he blames his own failures on everybody but himself.
If all that isn’t enough, it appears unlikely that Obama’s Syria strike will make it through Congress. As of last count, only 23 Senators had declared themselves in favor of such an action. And it looks like even LONGER odds in the House. And if Obama ignores this vote and strikes anyway, he will be inviting a true constitutional crisis. I hope Obama isn’t that stupid, but as with all things Obama, “hope” is pretty much all you’ve got.
Okay. I think I’ve made my point about bombing Syria being a stupid idea on just about every imaginable level.
We are playing a geo-political chess game here. And thanks to Obama’s incoherent and frankly irrational Middle East policies that are impossible for anybody to enumerate, we are losing that game rather badly.
So what SHOULD Obama do?
He shouldn’t bomb Syria; but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be ready to bomb somebody.
No, Obama should bomb IRAN. And blast their nuclear capability into ashes. THAT’S what he ought to do.
Iran is Syria’s patron-state. Syria matters only because Iran wants Syria to matter. Iran has been Syria’s puppet master all along, and Iran is the reason that Assad is still in power after two years of vicious revolution against him. Iran has been “all in” on Syria.
If we attack Iran’s nuclear program like the giant, jackbooted-foot of Allah, believe me, Obama would be off the hook for doing nothing against Syria’s use of chemical weapons. And at the same time, Syria would get the most crystal-clear message imaginable.
People like me would be forced to say, “Obama was a truly TERRIBLE president. Until he took out Iran’s nuclear weapons threat.”
Call it “Operation Go For The Jugular.” Rather than “Operation Enduring Confusion” as a strike on Syria would be.
Russia’s president Vladimir Putin has threatened that he would send his best air defense system to both Syria AND IRAN if Obama attacks Syria. We don’t have much time to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed nation, folks. If Iran has such an air defense capability, it will be very bloody for us to attack Iran. We’d better do it now.
And by the way, Mister president: DON’T go to Congress. Follow Nike’s advice and “Just Do It.” Make it a complete surprise. Hit them hard and keep hitting them until it will take Iran another hundred years to build a nuke.
The day that Iran – which already has enough nuclear material to make several bombs - arrives at the capability to mass-produce nuclear weapons as they have been feverishly working and making successes to achieve, it will truly “change the calculus” for world peace. Iran would be IMMUNE from attack even as Iran would be emboldened to carry out a war of jihad as it saw fit. And if they shut down the Strait of Hormuz and sent oil prices spiraling into the stratosphere, what would we do about it given that any attack would result in Armageddon? Because “mutually assured destruction” doesn’t work very well with a country like Iran that believes in 72 virgins awaiting them for being psychotic jihadist martyrs.
The problem with attacking Syria is that Syria simply doesn’t matter to us. Iran’s nuclear threat matters to us a great deal. If we’re going to go to war, let’s fight where it matters. Destroying Iran’s nuclear weapons program is worth fighting for. And unlike what Obama faces regarding Syria – with cricket’s chirping as he cries for allies – we would have Israel ready to join us in such a strike with everything they have.
We’re going to need to do this sooner or later. Any fool ought to know that. And sooner is far better than later, especially after Putin’s threat.
So how about it, Obama? Will you stop thinking petty and start thinking right?