We should all say "NO" to any military intervention (war) in Syria.
Here are the reasons why:
Here are the reasons why:
2. Any action initiated on our part has a strong potential for a wider war. We know that Iran is a strong supporter of the Syrian regime and may expand the war not only in Syria but throughout the Middle East including Israel. We know that Russia has interest in Syria and will not stand idly by if those interests are threatened. We also know that Islamist extremists will be emboldened by our intervention and may cause untold havoc especially to civilians.
3. Where is the strategic vision? Assume we destroy Syria's ability to deliver chemical weapons (or even their chemical stockpiles)? Don't you think they could get more from Iran or others? Assume we kill Assad? Who will replace him? Someone picked by Iran, Islamic extremists? Where will it end? What is our strategic goal, Mr. President? What is our exit strategy?
4. Where is the support from our allies? Each one may be ill equipped to take action on their own. But collectively, with our leadership, their contribution could be significant and not only in military terms. Why couldn't you convince them at the G20 Meeting, Mr. President? Is it because you are so right and they are so wrong?
5. Speaking of leadership. The Administration insists on calling the "war on terror", everything but a war. It is calling the proposed action in Syria a "military action" not war. When there is a strong risk that American blood will be spilled and military resources spent in a foreign land, that is war. We should have the courage to call it what it is.
6. This Administration has not proved competent in several areas. The economy continues to be anemic. In foreign affairs we have been weak, full of bluster with no followup, no meaning. The Administration has dug a hole for itself in the Middle East and now it is asking us to dig the hole even deeper. The way to build American strength is not through bluster or ill conceived responses. The way to build American strength is through a healthy and viable economy in a free and civil society. Let's get to work on that before we go off on another overseas misadventure.
7. A final word on the humanitarian crisis. The killing of civilians is a barbaric act. We should not intervene militarily when there is a strong probability that the Syrian regime's response will be more barbarism against civilians. We can demonstrate our repugnance as a civilized society by providing humanitarian aid to the millions of refugees displaced by this awful war. That is a proposition that I believe the American public and many foreign countries would agree to. But, we need to set the example; we need to show REAL leadership.
Here, here. Well said.
ReplyDeleteAs expected, another well written piece which is right on target. Being suspicious, I may add the 1st "red line" came and went with nary a whimper. Then we have the IRS, Benghazi, and NSA scandals which simply will not go away.....and then the "red line" is crossed again. May I be so bold as so hold the opinion Obama was going to act as a means of not allowing a tragedy to go to waste......and take the attention away from his many scandals? I say this because unlike, for example, the Libyan attack, Obama took action without any approval, if this were for humanitarian reasons, why not take action after the 1st red-line? Or even after the 2nd time? Here we are, in no sense of urgency what-so-ever even though Obama does not need Congressional approval and he already has sent five destroyer groups to the Med. Sea and two carries groups to the Per. Gulf......Why drag this thing out and risk even more human lives, if such is Obama's reasoning? Norm, your questions are all valid but we both know Obama is simply playing politics. Politics which will make his numerous scandals appear like old news, a well worn Clinton tactic.....As well as find a willing "partner" in Congress to share the blame is all doesn't go well. And of course, if all goes well, as did the finding and killing of Bin Laden, Obama will take the credit....How many times in Obama's; Bin Laden is dead speech, did he use the word I or under my leadership? This clown we have as a president should be selling widgets on Home Shopping Club or QVC.......KD
ReplyDeleteGood post. You forgot the cynicism of going to Congress NOW (for cover?) after treating them with so much disdain on immigration, so-called "recess" appointments and the defense of marriage act. Oh, and Obama is going around Congress again by moving ahead with onerous EPA regulations to save us mere mortals from global warming (ahem, climate change).
ReplyDeleteIt's not that we shouldn't respond to Assad who is evil personified. However, I wouldn't trust this president with my credit card let alone with command over our proud military. Moreover, as is so often the case in the Middle East, the opposition is just as bad and often worse than the person in power! We've seen this most recently in Egypt and in Libya!
So, I'll leave with an anecdote. I got into a small fender bender with my car a few months ago. When I went in to get it fixed the estimator said, "I'll quote you about $1,500 but that may change DEPENDING ON WHAT I FIND UNDER THE HOOD".
That's a key phrase. In the Middle East we NEVER know what's under the hood. But history tells us what we find is never pleasant and always increases the cost.
Thank you Lori, David and Kenny for your support and comments.
ReplyDeleteThe President's speech last night was vintage Obama. Lots of fantasy and little in the way of hard facts.
Let's be honest. The President's policies in the Middle East have been incoherent and inconsistent from the start. We are now entering a new stage of negotiation not brought about from a position of strength but because the Russians jumped on an off-the-cuff comment by the Sec. of State which the Dept. he heads initially discounted. For Obama this circumstance presented an opportunity to get out of a jam of his own making. Despite what the President may want us to believe, the outcome was not planned.
Some say that Obama's sorry record is due to incompetence. Others say that it is due to his ideological imperatives to diminish our influence in the world and to "spread the wealth" domestically. There is no doubt, however, that he projects a willful disregard for Constitutional principles and the free enterprise system.
We cannot expect that in the remaining years of his presidency that he will change his approach to governing or alter his objectives. That is to fundamentally transform America from world leadership and prosperity to a second rate power with an economy largely run by government.
This portends difficult times ahead not only for our economic well being but also internationally as our adversaries will surely take advantage of our weakness. We can expect more overseas crises, not less, as a result.