Why would leader of the world’s super power ever want to tell a potential enemy what its red line is, is a mystery to me. But, we won’t go into that today.
The neo-cons have been busy beating their war drums demanding that the President stand behind his word to go to war if chemical weapons were used in the Syrian conflict. Besides the fact the intel on whether chemical weapons were used or not is less than perfectly clear, is that the measure by which we noble Americans are to spill our blood and spend our treasure? Let’s save this discussion for another day, also.
So far President Obama has not accepted that his “red line” has been crossed. He is under a lot of pressure from neo-cons on both sides of the big pond, as well as, from the Saudis and others in the region. He is keeping his options open according to this CNS report:
“There are options that are available to me that are on the shelf right now that we have not deployed,” he told reporters packed into the White House briefing room.
There is no doubt that Obama wants to see the Assad regime fall. So, he is probably considering enforcing a no-fly zone over Syria or maybe a missile attack to destroy the store of chemical weapons, assuming we know for sure where they are. But, here is a question. Why do we want to Assad? Do we know that what would come next would be any better? What comes next could be even worse. And, by the way, isn’t Assad fighting jihadists? Aren’t jihadist are enemies? And, what makes us think that the fighting will stop and peace will prevail if Assad is gone? This is not Libya or Egypt. The fighting for power between the different forces will continue, in my opinion. And, I predict it will spread to Jordan and Iraq.
Silvio Canto, Jr. says: The problem with Syria is that there ar no good options.
1) Do nothing is not an option. You can’t sit back and let someone drop chemical bombs on innocent people. We did that with Saddam Hussein and it just emboldened him to invade Kuwait and get very reckless.
2) Go to the UN. Well, how did that work with Iraq? How much help are we getting from allies in Afghanistan? Unfortunately, President Obama will find out what President Bush and Clinton found out about the UN. The UN is really good about making anti-American statements but it is not very helpful with any of the world’s serious problems, like Syria today, Iraq and Sudan in the past.
3) Call on the Europeans to help. Good luck with that. The Europeans are too busy with their unemployment and collapsing welfare states. Furthermore, their militaries are inadequate anyway. We saw that in Libya that NATO can not put 2 jets in the air without US assistance.
4) Send US troops. The US public won’t go for that. Furthermore, President Obama has not prepared the public. He has not even explained Afghanistan and we have 60,000 troops there!
There are no pretty options but something must be done.
Your humble observer here at Asylum Watch does not agree that doing nothing is not an option. When it is all boiled down, this is a Muslim problem and should be dealt with by the Muslim nations in the region. We will not win any friends by getting involved. It is time to recognize that the Arab Spring has evolved into a Sunni -Shi’a war. This is their war not ours! Let them fight it out. In fifty or hundred years we will see if we can then deal with whoever is still standing.
But, what about the oil? How would we and the world survive without Middle East oil?
Will we never grow tired of spilling our blood for oil while the owners of the military-industrial complex get richer and richer? Times have changed. We can learn to survive without Middle East oil. With shale oil and shale gas and converting a large percentage of cars and trucks to operate on natural gas, it can and should be done.
Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?