Friday, September 06, 2013

Should we bomb Syria?

I'm puzzled by both Republicans and Democrats right now over the Syria issue. Back when Bush II invaded Iraq we could at least imagine that it was a clear case of good vs. evil--the evil, brutal dictator who gassed and oppressed his own people, vs. the average innocent Iraqi just trying to make ends meet.

I can't seem to find any "good guys" in the Syrian civil war. On the one side we have the brutal, evil dictator who gassed and oppressed his own people and on the other side we have a variety of Jihadist rebel groups who would probably rather kill "infidels" than look at us!

Even if there was a moderate group among the rebels (and that is disputed--some are saying that the "moderates" are now aligning themselves with Al Qaeda or other the Jihadists), how could we be sure the moderates would come out on top if the Assad regime were to fall?

If one or more of the Jihadist groups took control, wouldn't they also control the chemical weapons? How can we be sure they wouldn't make those weapons available to other terrorists who would use them against America or Israel?  Assad used chemical weapons to defend against the rebels but at least he has not used them against America, Israel or other countries.

If we really want to help Syrians, the millions of dollars we would spend on the missiles that Obama is about to launch would feed and house a LOT of refugees.

Besides, haven't we learned anything from Iraq?  Even though we went in to Iraq supporting the "good guys" (i.e. the average Iraqi citizen, against the brutal regime), Muslims and Democrats endlessly lambasted America in general and Republicans in particular for attacking Muslims and for melding in Muslim countries' business. Why would we now meddle in Syrian affairs when there is no immediate national security interest? If this administration is really so concerned about national security, why aren't they more concerned about the nuclear threat posed by North Korea and Iran?

So what are we doing? In my cynicism, I can't help thinking that our response is all about politics. Obama foolishly drew a red line in the sand over chemical weapons and now, to save face, he has to respond--even if that means 1) running the risk of escalating this into a full-blown Middle-East war, and 2) helping Jihadists who wouldn't hesitate to use chemical weapons in our cities! 

We should not go to war just because our President said something he shouldn't have said. We need to stay out of Syria!

1 comment:

professor ed said...

I agree Dennis. Obama got himself into this "pickle" because he forgot to put his brain in gear before putting his mouth in motion. Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Both Bushes and Regan, all showed an organized precise ability to lead. Alas our current occupant of 1600 Penn. Avenue is not even close to ANY of the above.