Getting Serious About Syria

To date, more than 100,000 people have been killed in Syria's two-year old civil war.  More than two million have fled the country as Syrian rebels of various stripes battle for the ouster of President Bashar al-Assad, whose family has controlled the country for over four decades.  Outside of arming some of the rebels, the United States has kept its nose out of the war.  Until now.

Reports of a chemical weapons attack a couple of weeks ago that killed more than 1400 civilians, allegedly instigated by Assad, has caused President Barack Obama to seriously consider ordering airstrikes against Syria.  He would have done so by now, had it not been for his late decision to step back and run it by Congress first.

For the past week, Obama and other government officials--most notably Secretary of State John Kerry--have been telling us that they have "overwhelming evidence" that there's more chemical weapons being stockpiled by Assad.  And if we don't do something about it, by golly, bad things are gonna happen in the Middle East.  Like the price of gasoline would go up a zillion percent.

Doesn't this remind you of President George W. Bush and his cronies, successfully conning Congress, the United Nations and the American People into believing that Saddam Hussein hid weapons of mass destruction all over Iraq?  They never were found, but it was already too late.  The U.S. found itself stuck in a war they couldn't get out of (to paraphrase the great philosopher Bono), until they finally did.

Obama has promised that Syria would be different.  Airstrikes would be limited, just enough to send a message to Assad that he shouldn't be gassing his own people.  No American soldiers would be sent to fight in Damascus, after having just fought in Kabul and Kandahar.  But no effort would be made to remove Assad from power.  That one the Syrians have to figure out on their own.

However, this approach might create more problems than it solves.  Russian President Vladimir Putin is Assad's BFF.  Most of the world is not siding with the U.S. on this issue, with the notable exception of France.  There are no 'good guys' among the rebels in Syria, some of whom happen to be aligned with Hezbollah and Al Qaeda.  And what if Assad retaliates with a chemical attack on Israel, or sends one of his agents onto American soil?

You might remember that President Obama once won the Nobel Peace Prize on the strength of winning the 2008 election as an African-American.  He hasn't done much to earn it since:  Heating up, then simmering down, two wars.  Drone attacks.  The killing of Osama bin Laden.  Alleged spying of American citizens, etc.  Maybe the Nobel committee should call the White House and ask for its Peace Prize back?

Right now Congress, returning early from their Labor Day break, is looking at the evidence the White House is showing them, then debating the wisdom of shooting missiles at Syria.  Well, they can debate all they want.  The Obama administration is going to go ahead and bomb anyway, whether Congress approves or not.  Because who are you gonna believe?  The President or a murderous dictator?

Since 1945, the United States has involved itself in wars where fighting the Communists or the terrorists somewhere else somehow translated into fighting for freedom and democracy at home.  Syria is not a national security risk now.  But it could become one if President Obama orders the airstrikes.  Why create a new enemy when you don't have to?  And why can't you leave well enough alone?  Because this is America., where any excuse to save the world from evil, even if it's a dictator in a small country that's no threat to this one, is greatly appreciated.  And you wonder why America's reputation around the world has declined.