So here we are again, the USA rides to the rescue, ha HA!
oh, we will surely solve the whole situation in...Syria. Who
is kidding WHO, exactly?
There seems to be little doubt that chemical weapons have
recently been employed in Syria: shroud upon shroud, body
after body, televised with no blood spatters, bruises, etc.
Still, I think our president was ill-advised in 2012 to state that
chemical weapon use in Syria would constitute "a red line"
which Syria had better not cross.
Let's recur once again to the Bush era, the father this time;
we didn't seem to care about the many THOUSANDS of
Northern Iraqi Kurds Saddam Hussein had gassed, this in
the late 1980s. Only when Kuwait was overrun (1990-91)
did Bush I intervene, a sharp, short, successful limited war.
Genocide, however, was not on any agenda to be avenged
or halted. The one bright exception was stopping the internecine
genocidal war among the slavs, largely by Bill Clinton's authority.
Now, however, in 2013, we feel quite prepared to enter
Syria's chaotic civil war, while President Assad is being
backed by nearby Russia and Iran, with all manner of terrorists
and mercenaries streaming in and already on hand. How many
Arabic speakers will we have available to our military? Why do
we think we will achieve mastery there? We haven't won a major
engagement since I was born 68 years ago, 1945, WWII.
-Korea? Nope. -Vietnam? Nope. -Iraq? Nope, and Afganistan,
nope again. So stop the "number one" cant/chant, already. It just
makes us look pathetic like France, Spain and the U.K. at
the end of their world dominance eras.
We're still actively engaged in Iraq, not to mention Afganistan,
whatever troop withdrawals have occurred. With a tiny amount
of cash in the federal kitty, our urgent need to borrow, DC at
polarized maximum, AND a small volunteer army, what IS
this tardy declaration now?
Which shoe is on which foot? I'll say nothing about WHOSE