OK, I’ll admit that I didn’t watch the President last night, but my novelas come on at that hour on Telemundo, so… But I did read the transcript this morning at Fox News. I was hoping that the president would answer some of my questions about his planned assault on the Syrian regime. Unfortunately, he did not. I’d like to know how this attack will make us safer, what the national security interest is in a limited attack on the Assad regime. This is what he said;
I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use.
But why is it in our “interests” to do all of that? “Because f* you, that’s why” is not a reason. It’s a little arbitrary to say that it’s not OK this time, but was OK all of those other times they’ve used chemical weapons in the last year when they crossed that “red line”. We invaded Iraq and deposed Hussein because we won’t tolerate the use of weapons of mass destruction – so if Assad hadn’t got the message yet, he has a comprehension problem. Do I need to remind you that Assad’s father was in the coalition against Hussein in 1991 and Syrian troops accompanied ours into Kuwait?
Obama goes on to remind us that the troops are out of Iraq and rushing for the exits in Afghanistan on his orders. I’m guessing that’s one of the reasons that he feels a need to use force against Syria because the whole world knows that he doesn’t have the cojones to see a mission through. There are more people dying in Iraq by the month than died while we were still there because we didn’t finish the job when we were there than. The job isn’t done in Afghanistan, mostly because Obama couldn’t properly staff the “surge” in 2009 against the advice of the generals and the CIA. The threat of US military action has no “umph”, largely thanks to the Democrats who fought a political war at home while our troops were fighting a real war overseas giving the enemy aid and comfort from the very beginning.
The President continues;
I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo.
It sounds like we’ll be able to keep our own doctors and healthcare costs won’t go up, and no taxes on the middle class promises, doesn’t it? The problem is that all military actions have a way of changing despite what politicians want to do.
Other questions involve the dangers of retaliation. We don’t dismiss any threats, but the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military.
Then, why are we even doing this, if Assad doesn’t have the means to threaten us? It’s as if he’s arguing with himself.
And so to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America’s military might with the failure to act when a cause is so plainly just.
To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain and going still on a cold hospital floor, for sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough.
Indeed, I’d ask every member of Congress and those of you watching at home tonight to view those videos of the attack, and then ask, what kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas and we choose to look the other way?
So, basically, we’re making a military strike in Syria costing billions of dollars and putting countless lives at risk as well as risking another world war “for the children?” Why didn’t he just say that in the beginning? I’m convinced.