No Syrian War to Save Obama’s Face!
“Catastrophic!” said Sen. John McCain.
If Congress votes no on a resolution calling for U.S. intervention in
Syria’s civil war, says McCain, it would be “catastrophic” for U.S.
credibility in the world.
Consider what the senator is saying here.
Because Barack Obama, two years ago, said “Assad must go,” and, one
year ago, said any use of chemical weapons crosses his “red line,”
Congress has no choice but to plunge America into yet another Mideast
war.
Can this be? Are we really, as a nation, required to go to war
to make good the simple-minded statements of an untutored president who
had no constitutional authority to issue his impulsive ultimata?
Are we really required to go to war to get the egg off Obama’s face?
Not since the War of Jenkins’ Ear has there been a dumber cause for a great country to go to war. Is there no way out?
There is, and it’s right in front of us.
The House, Senate or both can vote no on the war resolution and Obama
can then say, as did David Cameron, that, while he disagrees, he
respects the decision of a Congress in which the Constitution placed
sole authority to authorize America’s going to war.
Are Brits now crying “catastrophe!”? Do the Spanish no longer think
the Brits will defend Gibraltar? Is Britain now wholly non-credible to
the world?
For Obama, and for us, it is the other options that invite catastrophe.
If, for example, the House or Senate votes down the war resolution
and Obama, without authorization from Congress, the Security Council,
NATO or the Arab League plunges us into a new war this nation does not
want to fight, he will be courting a geostrategic and political
disaster.
Even if Congress approves a war resolution, the president should
think long and hard about diving into a war he sought to avoid and
stayed out of for over two years. Make no mistake; if Obama attacks
Syria, be it for hours or days, we are in that blood-soaked abattoir for
the duration.
In his dramatic statement Saturday, as politically astute as it was
constitutionally correct, Obama called Syria “someone else’s war.”
Whose war? It is Shia Alawite vs. Sunni, Muslim vs. Christian, Kurd
vs. Arab, Islamist vs. secularist. Backing Bashar Assad are Iran,
Hezbollah and Russia. Backing the rebels are Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the
Gulf states, al-Qaida, foreign jihadists and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Assad is accused of killing 100,00 people. But that is the total of
the dead in a civil war Assad has as much right to fight as the rebels.
While his army is accused of using gas on civilians, the Islamist rebels
have murdered Christians, massacred captives and engaged in public acts
of cannibalism on dead Syrian soldiers.
Gas is a sickening weapon. Yet, there is no evidence thus far that
Assad ordered its use. Rebel elements are said to have been found with
sarin. As for Americans who tend to prefer white phosphorus, napalm and
cluster bombs, upon what lofty moral ground do we stand?
Have we forgotten that Churchill wanted to drop anthrax on Germany
and settled for two days of firebombing the defenseless city of Dresden?
Or that our great friend Anwar Sadat was the confidante of Gamal Abdel
Nasser when Egypt was using poison gas on Yemeni tribesmen?
The United States does not have any national security interest in
Syria’s war. Why would we then launch missile attacks to “degrade”
Assad’s military, when that army and air force are all that stands
between us and a privileged sanctuary for al-Qaida in northern Syria,
not unlike what al-Qaida had in Tora Bora and Waziristan.
We are told that if we do not strike Syria — making good on Obama’s
threats — Israel, Turkey and even Japan and South Korea will not be able
to trust us ever again.
No Syrian War to Save Obama’s Face!
“Catastrophic!” said Sen. John McCain.
If Congress votes no on a resolution calling for U.S. intervention in
Syria’s civil war, says McCain, it would be “catastrophic” for U.S.
credibility in the world.
Consider what the senator is saying here.
Because Barack Obama, two years ago, said “Assad must go,” and, one
year ago, said any use of chemical weapons crosses his “red line,”
Congress has no choice but to plunge America into yet another Mideast
war.
Can this be? Are we really, as a nation, required to go to war
to make good the simple-minded statements of an untutored president who
had no constitutional authority to issue his impulsive ultimata?
Are we really required to go to war to get the egg off Obama’s face?
Not since the War of Jenkins’ Ear has there been a dumber cause for a great country to go to war. Is there no way out?
There is, and it’s right in front of us.
The House, Senate or both can vote no on the war resolution and Obama
can then say, as did David Cameron, that, while he disagrees, he
respects the decision of a Congress in which the Constitution placed
sole authority to authorize America’s going to war.
Are Brits now crying “catastrophe!”? Do the Spanish no longer think
the Brits will defend Gibraltar? Is Britain now wholly non-credible to
the world?
For Obama, and for us, it is the other options that invite catastrophe.
If, for example, the House or Senate votes down the war resolution
and Obama, without authorization from Congress, the Security Council,
NATO or the Arab League plunges us into a new war this nation does not
want to fight, he will be courting a geostrategic and political
disaster.
Even if Congress approves a war resolution, the president should
think long and hard about diving into a war he sought to avoid and
stayed out of for over two years. Make no mistake; if Obama attacks
Syria, be it for hours or days, we are in that blood-soaked abattoir for
the duration.
In his dramatic statement Saturday, as politically astute as it was
constitutionally correct, Obama called Syria “someone else’s war.”
Whose war? It is Shia Alawite vs. Sunni, Muslim vs. Christian, Kurd
vs. Arab, Islamist vs. secularist. Backing Bashar Assad are Iran,
Hezbollah and Russia. Backing the rebels are Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the
Gulf states, al-Qaida, foreign jihadists and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Assad is accused of killing 100,00 people. But that is the total of
the dead in a civil war Assad has as much right to fight as the rebels.
While his army is accused of using gas on civilians, the Islamist rebels
have murdered Christians, massacred captives and engaged in public acts
of cannibalism on dead Syrian soldiers.
Gas is a sickening weapon. Yet, there is no evidence thus far that
Assad ordered its use. Rebel elements are said to have been found with
sarin. As for Americans who tend to prefer white phosphorus, napalm and
cluster bombs, upon what lofty moral ground do we stand?
Have we forgotten that Churchill wanted to drop anthrax on Germany
and settled for two days of firebombing the defenseless city of Dresden?
Or that our great friend Anwar Sadat was the confidante of Gamal Abdel
Nasser when Egypt was using poison gas on Yemeni tribesmen?
The United States does not have any national security interest in
Syria’s war. Why would we then launch missile attacks to “degrade”
Assad’s military, when that army and air force are all that stands
between us and a privileged sanctuary for al-Qaida in northern Syria,
not unlike what al-Qaida had in Tora Bora and Waziristan.
We are told that if we do not strike Syria — making good on Obama’s
threats — Israel, Turkey and even Japan and South Korea will not be able
to trust us ever again.
