World Police

Syria is the hot topic today – Bashar Assad has used Sarin on rebel areas, killing more than 1400 people. Over 400 were children.

The images coming out of Syria are heartbreaking. Previously, President Obama had warned that use of chemical weapons were the “red line” that, if crossed, would result in possible military action against the country. Now that we have footage showing the indelible evidence of chemical weapons being used, we’re talking about going to war with Syria.

They’re embroiled in a civil war. They haven’t invaded another country. Yet we’re talking about military strikes.

Iraq was a completely different story. Saddam had invaded two other countries. Neighboring countries had begged us to stop him. He agreed to certain terms when he surrendered in 1991, terms that he decided to stop living by when Bill Clinton was in office. For eight years, Saddam rattled his saber, deliberately letting out intel that he had chemical weapons (which he was barred from having) and was trying to gain nuclear capabilities. Whether he was trying to scare Iran or trying to stir up crap with us, we may never know; either way, we had every reason to believe that he was a danger to us and everyone around him.

Why are we talking about striking Syria? Well, if you listen to John Kerry, it’s because he’s using chemical weapons and killing thousands. Okay…why do we need to get involved? Both sides of Syria’s civil war are hostile to America. Assad had been spotted having very swanky dinners with Kerry in the past, but he was never really a friend of the US (and it’s an absolute embarrassment to see the photos of those expensive powwows). Assad openly hates one of our closest allies, Israel. On the other side of this conflict are the rebels – who are backed, funded, and trained by Al Qaeda. We all know what they think of us. They made that clear on 9/11.

What do we hope to get out of this? What is the plan? What is our exit strategy? These are all questions that have hardly been entertained, much less answered.

What do we hope to get out of this? Ostensibly, the goal is to stop Assad from continuing to use chemical weapons. The problem with this is that we don’t know where all of them are. It would be impossible to destroy all of his WMD’s. There is no way we’d be able to make sure he can’t use them anymore.

What is the plan? We don’t have one. Obama claims he doesn’t want to put boots on the ground, that it’ll only be airstrikes. The problem with that is that we know that even though we can’t locate all of the weapons, most of them have been moved to civilian areas. We’d never be able to carry out an airstrike without killing at least as many civilians as Assad already has, if not more. The only way to destroy all of the weapons without killing thousands of civilians is to put boots on the ground, something that nobody in our military wants to do.

Seriously. The idea of going in to protect the same terrorist group that struck not only us but Spain and England is detestable to our military.

What is our exit strategy? We haven’t even considered it yet. During today’s hearings, Secretary of State John Kerry has been putting the onus on Congress to call for a military strike, reminding them that they voted to join the international chemical weapons forum against proliferation. Okay…if we agreed to stop the proliferation of chemical weapons, what good would it do to destroy Assad’s current arsenal without making the tyrant account for his crimes? They say we don’t want to depose Assad, but simply destroying his cache isn’t going to stop him from making more and using them in the future (that’s assuming we could destroy his entire arsenal). If we leave him in power, the agreement to stop proliferation has no teeth.

The media is no help right now. Chris Matthews has said that Democrats should support war to save face for Obama. Why do we need to help him save face? He deserves a little humiliation here. If he really was drawing a red line in the sand, then the instant he found out that chemical weapons had been deployed he should have ordered a strike and then announced it to us. This protracted, dramatic act he’s putting on – putting it on hold for a month and passing the buck to Congress so he won’t have to take responsibility for his own words – is humiliating to all of us.

We are not the world’s police. When we went into Iraq, many liberals got very upset, saying that we had no business telling everyone else how to live. If that is what you believe then you need to stick up for that belief. We have no business getting involved in Syria.