Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Syria: Which Shoe IS on Which Foot Now?

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


  1. Agreed that President Obama's "Red Line Declaration" last year was ill-advised. As much as I hate to consider this, saving face could be one of the principal motivations driving this ill-advised venture.

    Officially, the rationale for the use of military force seems to be that we need to punish the Assad regime. So that revenge is to be exacted by killing more innocent Syrians. Some military analysts believe that the proposed air attacks wouldn't even be an effective deterrent against future atrocities by Assad. They could even stiffen his resolve.

    Tragically, there are no easy answers. Humanitarian aid should be our principal priority along with continued diplomatic pressure.

  2. Replies
    1. Best wishes to you and yours over the
      Labor Day weekend. Obama says he is waiting for Congress to go ahead in Syria, so we have a few days' respite, at least.
      I believe only God's intervention can straighten out human affairs, as our own efforts are sadly lacking.

      Take care!

  3. It will be interesting to hear President Obama talk to us on Tues evening, the day before 911's anniversary. Russia and the U.N. have stepped up diplomatic pressure on Syria, whose president was interviewed by Charlie Rose. Meanwhile, a clear majority of polled Americans do not want us intervening in the chaotic civil war there, two years and counting, with many diffuse and different political and military entities streaming in, conducting proxy war actions, ad nauseam.