Thus far, the congressional hearings indicate that the plan is to bomb just enough to punish Assad for using weapons but not enough to make him lose the civil war. Why is that? Well, we don't really want Al-Qaeda - which is allied with the rebels - to win. But on the other hand, the President has been declaring for over two years that Assad must go. So which is it? Sad to say but Assad is probably the better option. Do we want elements of Al-Qaeda to acquire chemical weapons in the aftermath of Assad's fall? Secretary of State Kerry suggested that we might put boots on the ground to secure such stockpiles; I would agree that is in the national interest if Assad falls but I don't think most Americans are too keen on another Mideast adventure.
Setting aside the idea of seizing chemical weapons, what exactly is the US national interest here? Assad allegedly gassed a thousand or so people and that must not go unpunished. So, it was okay for him to machinegun and bomb the other 99 thousand? We care about how they were killed, not that they were killed.
The only reason that we are going to intervene (I think Obama will probably get approval from Congress) is to make good on Obama's foot-in-mouth redline lest America lose prestige overseas. Did the murder of our ambassador have no impact on our prestige? What of abandoning Poland and the Czech Republic in the face of Russian complaints about missile defense? Edward Snowden revelations? No, none of that is hurting us overseas. Weren't we supposed to have Smart Diplomacy now?
Rand Paul pointed out that there could be serious repercussions to an attack on Syria. Syria has already promised to attack Israel in the event of US attacks. Iran, which is already heavily supporting Syria, might be drawn in. Russia has warships in port on the Syrian coast and is backing Assad. Given Obama's track record in the Middle East (siding with Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, assassination of Libyan ambassador, abandoning Iraq, hopeless policy against pre-nuclear Iran, poor relations with Israel, etc.), I think it would be wisest to keep out. Really, do we think he'll finally have a success in a no-win situation?
Now let's visit the fringe: Yossef Bodansky (http://www.globalresearch.ca/did-the-white-house-help-plan-the-syrian-chemical-attack/5347542) says that Assad is being 'framed' for the chemical attack. In the days before the attack, the rebels had a huge influx of weapons for an upcoming campaign in the wake of America bombing of Assad. How did they know a chemical attack was coming? I am reminded of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor. The Maine was sunk by an explosion while the US and Spain were having very tense relations over the Cubans. Spain was blamed for the sinking though some suggested that it might have been Cuban rebels seeking to pull the US into what became the Spanish-American War (1898). Bodansky also suggests that US intelligence had foreknowledge of the attack. Hmm.
Like Jimmy Carter, Obama seems to have it out for dictators even though the alternative is worse. Carter abandoned the Shah of Iran and that has not gone well for us or the people of Iran. Obama dumped Mubarak in Egypt and that isn't going too well either. Is Assad next on the hit list? Yes, this is crazy talk (I hope) but may be worth consideration a year hence.
No comments:
Post a Comment