Posted on Sarah Palin's facebook page:
Sarah Palin's statement on President Obama and his Syria 'plan'
So we’re bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And I’m the idiot?”
President Obama wants America involved in Syria’s civil war pitting the antagonistic Assad regime against equally antagonistic Al Qaeda affiliated rebels. But he’s not quite sure which side is doing what, what the ultimate end game is, or even whose side we should be on. Haven’t we learned? WAGs don’t work in war.
We didn’t intervene when over 100,000 Syrians were tragically slaughtered by various means, but we’ll now intervene to avenge the tragic deaths of over 1,000 Syrians killed by chemical weapons, though according to the White House we’re not actually planning to take out the chemical weapons because doing so would require “too much of a commitment.”
President Obama wants to do what, exactly? Punish evil acts in the form of a telegraphed air strike on Syria to serve as a deterrent? If our invasion of Iraq wasn’t enough of a deterrent to stop evil men from using chemical weapons on their own people, why do we think this will be?
The world sympathizes with the plight of civilians tragically caught in the crossfire of this internal conflict. But President Obama’s advertised war plan (which has given Assad enough of a heads-up that he’s reportedly already placing human shields at targeted sites) isn’t about protecting civilians, and it’s not been explained how lobbing U.S. missiles at Syria will help Syrian civilians.
Do we really think our actions help either side or stop them from hurting more civilians?
We have no clear mission in Syria. There’s no explanation of what vital American interests are at stake there today amidst yet another centuries-old internal struggle between violent radical Islamists and a murderous dictatorial regime, and we have no business getting involved anywhere without one.
And where’s the legal consent of the people’s representatives? Our allies in Britain have already spoken. They just said no. The American people overwhelmingly agree, and the wisdom of the people must be heeded.
Our Nobel Peace Prize-winning President needs to seek Congressional approval before taking us to war. It’s nonsense to argue that, “Well, Bush did it.” Bull. President Bush received support from both Congress and a coalition of our allies for “his wars,” ironically the same wars Obama says he vehemently opposed because of lack of proof of America’s vital interests being at stake.
Bottom line is that this is about President Obama saving political face because of his “red line” promise regarding chemical weapons
.
As I said before, if we are dangerously uncertain of the outcome and are led into war by a Commander-in-chief who can’t recognize that this conflict is pitting Islamic extremists against an authoritarian regime with both sides shouting “Allah Akbar” at each other, then let Allah sort it out.
The left see vital American interests as reasons NOT to use military force. They have no interest in vital American interests.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. But what _is_ the US vital interest here?
DeleteKrauthammer suggests that if we're going to drop some bombs, we should, you know, drop some bombs. Take out all the airfields. Destroy Assad's air force.
What if the campaign were more like the campaign against Serbia? Regime change from the air. (Of course people differ about the wisdom of picking sides on that one, but it was successful from a purely military and political objective. There was a political objective, and the military succeeded in achieving it.) It's likely that a couple of carriers could bomb the Assad regime into a similar submission over a couple months.
Personally I don't buy it and I think there are really good reasons as to why the campaign Krauthammer suggests is a bad idea.
But - I'm hesitant to let my political opposition to the current President and my instinct for tit-for-tat spite against (selectively) anti-war leftists color my judgement. If bombing Syria is in our interest, I'd be for it. I just don't see any likely outcome of any plausible operation that could advance our interests.
Left unsaid is the outcome for the "do nothing" option: the balance of external forces (Saudis, Iranians, Russians, and NATO countries) creates a stalemate among their local proxies in Syria. After a long, bloody struggle it settles into a stable, de-facto partition: an Alawi rump state still in possession of chemical weapons, jet fighters and Russian/Iranian backing, and one or more radical Sunni jihadi-stans run by Al-Qaida associated militants. They might nicely offset Hizballah just to the west of them. Or they could turn their attention further west. Or win the allegiance of Hamas. In any case, there would be nobody to call, nobody to negotiate with, and no way to project any kind of force or security.
The worst case breakdown into partition, civil war and terrorist enclaves feared for Iraq is happening right now in Syria. Arguably already beyond the point of no return. I think the time for action was probably about 2 years ago. Too late now.
As Radio Matt said, there is no vital (or any other kind) of US national interest here, unless one counts 0bama's seemingly desperate desire to arm Al Queda & its affiliates with the latest in US weapons technology.
DeleteThat may be Barry's interest, but it is certainly not mine, especially in today's world of rapid transportation and porous borders.
This is yet another of hundred(thousands?) of instances where 0bama's desires, and the needs of the American people are diametrically opposed
I really REALLY don't want to go into Syria.
ReplyDeleteI don't trust Obama to run to the grocery store for a loaf of bread, let alone run a military strike. Seeing a picture of his cabinet, and realizing who sits at that table dishing out advice, is scary.
I worry about Israel if the bombs start flying. What happens if we hit a chemical weapons depot and the containers break? There are a thousand things that could go wrong.
I get the eerie feeling that there is a LOT more going on behind the scenes. Why have Mr. Blubberface and Cantor jumped on board so quickly? I don't know if I'm looking at a three-ring circus or something occult and sinister. The whole thing is deeply disturbing.
I do not like to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I really do begin to believe that both major parties are thoroughly infiltrated by muslim, and/or socialist elements, and that both are working against the needs and desires of the citizens of America.
Delete