Tuesday, August 27, 2013

What would be our goal in attacking Syria? Retribution for the immoral chemical attack? Overthrow of Assad" Just what is our goal when we do this?

“..Now there’s an unholy alliance pushing for attacks on Syria. We have liberal zealots, such as our UN ambassador, Samantha Power, who believe that our military’s primary purpose is to protect people who hate America. We have a few Republican senators like John McCain and Lindsey Graham who support any war, any time. We have a president who thinks that, “Gee, maybe, well, gosh, I said I’d do something, so maybe I should...” And we have elements in the defense industry who long for a return to our free-spending years in Iraq and Afghanistan and view a war in Syria as a great way to beat the sequester.
And the one thing every member of that bomb-Syria-now coalition has in common? Not one will have to fight….”
I seldom agree with the NY Post’s editorial and op.ed. pages, but Ralph Peters’ column this morning is a good read, and an important statement on the impending air strikes by the US, and Britain.
Chemical weapon use against civilians is barbaric; and it is a moral issue. It should be condemned by all civilized countries and its’ leaders.
It should be condemned by the UN, in spite of the expected opposition of the Russians and likely Chinese to higher level sanctions against Syria.
But Peters opposition to the coming strikes is based on real politick.
The strikes will toughen Assad’s resistence. They will be opposed by Iran, Iraq, and Russia. Russia has a warm water port in Damascus, the only one available to the Russians.
Assad is a despicable tyrant; and should be replaced. But he has military superiority in the civil war.
He is also the current head of a nation. The bombing of Syrian military sites by us is an act of war. While it is a quaint notion, our Constitution requires a Congressional declaration of war or approval of executive war actions within a short period of weeks after military action is commenced.

No comments: