Translate


Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Syria: Here We Go Again

The Syria news is all over the map. The US administration has concluded that the Syrian government was the culprit in the gas attack that killed over 300 people. OK. I agree. One report says the US will attack Thursday. (What would Eisenhower say?) The UN wants us-US- to do the dirty work. According to the below article, we won't attack the WMD sites, nor will we send send troops in. We are going to lob missiles in for a few hours.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/27/any-us-strike-against-syria-like-to-last-hours-not-days/

Here's my question:

Why us?

Why does it always have to be us?

"Because, Fousesquawk, the US has the strongest military."

I say, "So what?"

If the Arab League has concluded that someone needs to stop the Assad government, why don't they do it-you know like they all invaded Israel in 1948 and tried to do again in 1967?

Not that I don't feel for the innocent civilians who are being killed by their own government. I felt for them when they were being bombed or mown down in the streets just for protesting. I feel for the three truck drivers who were executed recently (by rebels) just because they were Alawites instead of Sunnis.

But does that mean that we have to involve our military every time some hell hole of a nation goes on a murderous rampage against its own citizens or falls into civil war? We don't even know which group we are supporting against Assad. The bad guys are on both sides. A German news report I posted here not long ago says that those refugee camps are loaded with bad actors. Thousands are soon coming to a street near you.

Remember Bosnia and Kosovo? What thanks did we get out of that? None. Remember Libya? We got a lot of thanks out of that. Meanwhile, the French, who led that effort, never saw their embassies attacked or their diplomats slaughtered. Look at what our caring about Egypt has gotten us. Both sides hate us.

And what do you think the world's reaction will be when one of missiles takes out a bunch of civilians-women and children?

I'm sorry, but the Middle East is a hell hole, and I don't want to sacrifice one American soldier to save the Syrians from themselves. Not that I am blind to the threat, but to me, we need our eye on the ball, and the ball is Iran. The showdown is coming whether we like it or not. Of course, if we go into Syria, the showdown could very well be excellerated since Iran is Syria's ally and reportedly has troops fighting on the government side now.

We have spent enough blood and treasure for the Arab world. Our focus should be on defending Israel and stopping the Iranian threat as we develop our own sources of energy and isolate the Islamist movement to its own little corner of the world.

John Kerry made a very eloquent speech yesterday outlining the moral outrage of the Syrian government. He didn't flat out accuse the Syrian government of culpability, but strongly implied it. He said that the UN inspection team would not determine who carried out the attack only whether chemical weapons were used. At the same time, I watched a German news report on Tageschau in which the UN inspectors told reporters that they had no mandate to determine who was responsible. Today, our administration says it was Assad's forces.  So now what? Kerry's speech, eloquent as it was, had no solutions or hint of what we were going to do. He wisely, of course, did not take questions. Why should he? He would have had no answers to the obvious questions.

Rightfully or wrongfully, President Obama is following in the footsteps of George W Bush in Iraq. As in Iraq, we will wind up "owning it" rebuilding it, having to keep troops there fighting insurgents, trying to establish democracy,  and trying to make Syria into the next Switzerland. In that respect, we have failed in Iraq and failed in Afghanistan. What makes us gullible Westerners think we can succeed in Syria?

Until the eventual confrontation comes with Iran, I am joining the peaceniks when it comes to Syria.



Ugh!

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Couldn't agree with you more on this one. Why us, indeed? What scares me with firing these missiles is the likelihood of retaliation against Israel, and possibly against targets in Europe (train stations, airports, synagogues)and perhaps even in the US. We need to stay out of this mess. By the way, Russia and China's rhetoric on the gas attacks has been just laughable. Ugh.

Squid said...

"One report says the US will attack Thursday" Who needs a Snowden when we have Obama telling the enemy that we will attack on Thursday.
And, wha would Eisenhower say? You stupid community organizer, you should listen to your generals, not your Progressives.

Squid

Findalis said...

I'm with you Gary. I really don't give a damn what Assad or the rebels do as long as it is in Syria. Let them kill each other and let G-d sort them all out.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

One lesson of Iraq was, if we're not prepared to invest the personnel and materiel to take total control of the territory, as we did in Germany and Japan after WW II, then we shouldn't go in at all.

As for lobbing missiles, that wasn't too effective when we lobbed missiles at Sudan for hosting bin Laden, or at Iraq for making some attempt to kill GHWB.

Eisenhower would say, I ran for president so we wouldn't have some idiot in the White House listening to Squid -- who reminds me a bit of Robert Taft.

Gary Fouse said...

Siarlys,


Wrong history. General Eisenhower would say in June of 1944 that loose lips sink ships.

Siarlys Jenkins said...

Gary, you have an amazing penchant for being unable to distinguish 1944 from 1952.

I might add that in 1944, Hitler knew quite well that Europe was going to be invaded from England. He knew it for months before D-Day. Only the details were uncertain. Regarding the details, loose lips do indeed sink ships.

So, don't press President Obama too hard to go before a joint session of congress and name the targets and the weapons to be targeted.