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!