Has the time finally come to intervene in the extended Syrian multi-sided civil war? After tens of thousands of deaths, shifting allegiances and numerous inept attempts at brinkmanship, the U.S. seems poised to engage in military involvement into yet another middle east morass. The ‘red line’ of the use of chemical weapons appears to have been crossed. Is that why Pres. Obama and his administration are in a rush to bomb Syria?
Saddam Hussein had used chemical weapons on countless thousands of his own people, but the very credible threat (at the time) that he was prepared to do it again wasn't justification for war or military engagement according to Obama then. Why is this situation different and how?
Pres. Obama has repeatedly excoriated Pres. Bush for our involvement the Iraq war, which had congressional authorization, as well as overwhelming UN approval. Now he wants to commit the U.S. military to a course of action on Syria because someone there used chemical weapons in the midst of an ongoing multi-party civil war. And he seems prepared to do it without congressional approval or involvement.
Where is the clear and convincing evidence that the Assad regime is responsible?
Where is the evidence that involvement of our military will help? And whom will we be helping, Assad, the Syrian people or al-Qaeda?
Does anyone doubt that the vicious, murdering al-Qaeda terrorists and their thug friends would sacrifice a few thousand Syrians to place blame on the Assad administration? I'm not suggesting by any means that Assad and his cronies are innocent, but I haven't seen any compelling reason why we should intercede in Syria at all, let alone without a clear path to success. At this point, no one can even define what success would actually be in this situation.
I could care less that the UN approves of military engagement. American citizens and the U.S. Congress are the first people who need to be consulted on this decision, in that order. Then Israel and maybe our other allies. The Muslim Brotherhood is definitely and decidedly not our ally, so they don't make the cut at all.
If the French and British want to intervene, as the news reports, then why not let them? Both countries have formidable militaries of their own, including cruise missiles. Saudi Arabia has an American-supplied air force, as do several other regional powers. Can't they drop a few bombs to save Syrian lives, if that's really what's at stake here.
We are told that the Free Syrian Army, ostensibly the ‘real’ Syrians, are in desperate need of financial support. I can think of several extremely wealthy arab nations that have a vested interest in a stable middle east, including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. Let them open up their treasuries.
Here's a bizarre idea, if we really want to open the hand of cooperation with Iran and Russia, let's get them involved. Invite them to intervene on behalf of the Syrian people. After all, aren't the Syrians supposed to be their sworn allies? What better way to forge a bond with those governments than to work together to help stop the slaughter of innocent Syrians that apparently so many people suddenly seem to have developed a deep and abiding concern for? Isn't Pres. Obama all for a wide open foreign policy with direct engagement of governments that are either openly or subversively hostile to us? Doesn’t the Iranian government keep telling us how peaceful their intentions are? Can’t Pres. Obama simply persuade them to launch a few of those sophisticated missiles that they’ve developed at these dastardly chemical weapon-wielding villains in a show of their ‘good will’ toward fellow man?
I'm really not trying to be snarky or insensitive. I care deeply that people are being killed, maimed and tortured in Syria and many other places around the world. It is tragic and unacceptable, and I pray for them all. But if we are going to put more people in harms way, both Americans and others, I think that we should have a clear understanding of what we aim to achieve, along with how and why. Only then should we decide whether to commit resources, be that money, people or might, toward an objective that is realistic and achievable.
Let's actually help people instead of throwing lives, bombs and money at the problem hoping it will go away.
