As great as the need may be for preventing the use of chemical weapons, as well as deterring (i.e. kicking the behinds of) those who use them, unless there is a demonstrable direct threat to our country, it’s not our place to go it alone.
In the case of Syria, there is as much of a potential threat to the U.S. if John Kerry’s “secular” rebels manage to turn that country into an even more malignant terrorist hotbed. Unfortunately, the choice between oppressive secular regimes or thug snuggeries seems to be the only option these days. Any freedom-loving citizen of a Middle Eastern Muslim country disagree with that assessment? Raise your stump.
I believe there is such a thing as doing the right thing, but the reason for the opposition is, in Peggy Noonan’s words, “Wrong time, wrong place, wrong plan, wrong man.”
If a strike supported only by the U.S. and (ahem) France tempts regimes like Iran to save face after promising to retaliate by hurling brimstone into Israel and Lord knows where else, and if it triggers a full-scale war, throttling the supply of oil to some of our lovely fair-weather friends, like China, the finger pointing is only going to be in one direction — well, two directions, but who gives a flying frappé about France?
I don’t have any qualifications as a military strategist, so I'm apparently on par with the Commander in Chief, but if we can take a decade or so to knock off the world’s worst scum, then I think it’s a good idea to hold off until we come up with an approach that doesn’t risk a touch of Armageddon, if you please.
And do we really want the same minds who haven't even come to grips with the Benghazi attack one year ago, making decisions about something like this?
Besides, the truth has finally come out as to what caused all the hubbub in Syria in the first place. You guessed it: global warming — SUVs, Big Macs. All our fault.
|This recycled photo illustration is completely irrelevant, but bite me, it's fun.|
Paging Major Gore...