I feel a bit like Alice in Wonderland going through the magic looking glass. Hanoi Jane’s pacifist buddy John Kerry is thumping the war drums? Even Nancy Pelosi the ultimate liberal is out for some Syrian blood? There’s something bizarre when Liberals get itchy trigger fingers.
Are cooler heads going to back these newly minted hawks off the edge of the cliff or not?
What’s the chances we send our exhausted veterans off to yet another middle eastern war?
I’m going to be blissfully optimistic and voted Hell Will Freeze Over before Congress authorizes any action.
I’m hoping the American public will make it abundantly clear that we’re fed up and sick of the middle east. We’ve sent enough of our people to die only to have our ambassador murdered in Benghazi. Americans can’t even safely walk the streets of Baghdad. That’s what we get for saving these people from Saddam and Gaddafi.
Let Syria fight it’s own civil war.
Our exhausted troops don’t want to fight another war.
Good article from Business Insider. This succinctly expresses my concerns.
Read the email from a Marine Corps infantry veteran with 3 deployments to Iraq. He’s been there, seen the fighting first hand and knows what he’s talking about. For balance there’s also an email from the other perspective.
Read more: SOLDIER ON SYRIAN INTERVENTION: 'We Are Stretched Thin, Tired, and Broke' - Business Insider
If only we had listened when conservatives warned us about intervening in Libya two years ago.
“Even”? Iraq is full of people who have every reason to want to kill any American they can get their hands on. We’re their enemies. We slaughtered them and wrecked their country, and spent years systematically abusing them. We did pretty much everything we could to convince them that we’re monsters. So of course they hate us. We’d certainly hate anyone who did the same to us.
That’s exactly the same feeling in Libya and Afghanistan. Which is why we need to stay out of Syria. Even if we approached it like Libya and didn’t send troops. The anti-American hatred would still be there and Assad’s weapons would fall into al-Qaeda’s hands.
I’ve had a complete turn around in the past decade. I used to believe strongly in nation building. I’ve read extensively on the rebuilding of Europe under the Marshall Plan. The rebuilding of Japan under MacArthur and the recovery of South Korea after the Korean war. Given the opportunity there’s a lot powerful nations can do to help rebuild a shattered country. Under the right circumstances I’d still support nation building.
But, that only works if there isn’t a strong faction within the country fighting against rebuilding. We’ve learned that the hard way since 9/11. Al-Qaeda thrives in the chaos of a shattered country. We’re seeing that right now in Libya. Yes there are positive factions there that want a better life. But there’s a lot of negative factions with their own agendas. We already know Al-Qaeda has infiltrated the Syrian rebels. Bringing down Assad just plays right into their hands.
There has been one very big success since 9/11. The Kurdish region has thrived since obtaining autonomy in Iraq. That started back in the 90’s when the no fly zone was established. The Kurds have done an excellent job creating a stable and peaceful area in which to live. There’s even a Kurdish tourism industry developing.
It’s still not a safe place for Americans but compared to the rest of Iraq it’s doing really well. It’s all because of the hard work of the Kurds. They dreamed of a homeland for centuries and they’re creating one.
It would be wonderful if something similar eventually happened in Syria. But factions like Al-Qaeda will never allow that to happen.
There is absolutely, virtually **no **chance that there will be any sort of nation building or land invasion of Syria thus rendering this question moot. At worst we will send a few Air Force squadrons (although I suspect we will prefer Predator drones) who haven’t exactly had busy schedules this past decade. And with regards to Libya it is quite apparent that most Libyans are grateful for our intervention-observe the attacks against the Islamist militias after the brutal murder of our ambassador there last year.
The GULF WAR 2 would never have happened if George Bush the Elder had
pushed for a no-fly zone over all of Iraq at the end of the First Gulf War.
The U.S. , France, Turkey, and Australia should declare a no-fly zone over Syria.
Aerial bombardment of Alawite Syria for any reason is going to turn out badly for the West.
The Allies should go thru with a no-fly zone because this will put the civil war
in Syria on a more level and equitable playing field. Knocking out noncommercial aircraft over Syria will spare our nation the humiliation of “collateral damage”
(killing civilians on the ground), photographic horrors spread all over the world
by another American bombing campaign, and a growing animosity from other
Middle East allies such as Egypt.
This would give the President a smooth exit from the “eye for an eye”,
“tit for tat” punishment of foreigners for their overseas use of a disfavored weapon system. If the Allies join together for a military no-fly, then all the
CINC will then need is a simple majority of Congress.
FWIW, I suspect that Obama has lost interest in any response and is looking to congress to prevent it while giving him political cover. It is hard to see the House giving him anything he asks for so it is safe for him to pretend to support the request.
The point is that whether he decided to attack or not to attack, he would be mercilessly hounded by critics.
I don’t see how anyone is getting “suckered”. It;s all laid out for anyone who wants to read it.
And really, a few bombs into Syria isn’t “another Middle Eastern war”.
More like business as usual, imho.
No vote because the options are hyperbolic and loaded with the same kind of rhetoric we heard when Obama “started a third war” in Libya.
I hope they say no, but my vote is that they lob some missles, pat themselves on the back, and call it job well done.
Like other people have mentioned in other threads, I find it rather strange that we were OK to ignore the slaughter of thousands of innocent civilians, but now that he’s (allegedly) done it with chemical weapons, now we have a problem with civilian casualties. :dubious:
There’s a long tradition of doing it that way though
Staying out of crazy pointless local wars? Check.
Jumping in recklessly when there seems to be some reason? Check.
Chemical weapon use is Bad News, check.
Once people realize this, we’ll start seeing chem use in African wars too. It’s unfortunate.
My biggest concern is what happens after we fire off a few rockets? Somehow I don’t see Assad just turning the other cheek and ignoring us. I got a bad feeling this would escalate quickly.
Any attack is an act of war and Congress better think long and hard before dragging all of us into this mess. Especially since there’s little public support for any action. England has turned us down. I’m not sure France wants to help either.
Given that the best interests of the US would be served by a long, drawn-out stalemate that lasts decades, I vote for “no action.”
I don’t see Assad having the capability of responding against us in any meaningful fashion. Israel drops bombs on Syria on the regular, and they pretty much let it slide.
A few days ago I figured there would be no congressional approval. Now I’m thinking it will squeak by.
The French are actually quite enthusiastic for intervention.
Not enthusiastic enough to actually help out, however. But as long as the US is one that’s going to do the fighting [sub](and suffer the inevitable terror reprisals in the future)[/sub] then GO USA !!!