Saturday, August 31, 2013

We Should Stay the Hell Out of Syria

President Obama is considering another unwise foreign military incursion, this time in Syria. The New Jersey Star-Ledger editorialized that we should be certain about Syria. They write:

We are faced with mounting evidence that the Syrian regime is gassing its own people. And if that is the case, we must send a strong signal to President Bashar Assad that his attacks on civilians are not without limits.
But while it’s increasingly clear that we need to strike, we don’t have to do so right away, as U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and others are urging. Given our memories of Iraq, where we launched a war based on false claims of weapons of mass destruction, we should be careful about justifying our involvement now. And why the sudden rush?

Before attacking Syria, the editors say, we must be sure that we can prove that Assad is using chemical weapons. And if it comes to military action, the editors say, "We must carefully weigh our tactics here: Many of these sites are in civilian areas, and we must do everything we can to minimize those casualties."

I left these comments:

I commend the editors for urging caution, as far as it goes. Unfortunately, they completely ignore the bigger question.

Why the hell would we get involved in the Syrian civil war at all? There is no threat to America, and no compelling national interest. 

Since 9/11, we have placed bringing "democracy" to a region that hates what America stands for—individual rights and the rule of objective law—above American self-interest. We got Islamist enemies gaining influence and getting elected all over the Middle East, and the threat of Islamic totalitarianism is greater than ever. (Remember, the Islamists' openly stated goal is world domination under Islamic theocracy.)

Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya; enough with the altruistic welfare wars. We need a president who will proudly announce to the world that America will use its military only for national defense and only against those who threaten or attack us; i.e., only when American's lives, liberties, and properties are threatened or attacked—and then only with swift, overwhelming force. And if military action is required, rather than "do everything we can to minimize those [civilian] casualties," we should do everything we can to win with minimal cost to American military lives and American wealth. The safety of civilians is the moral responsibility of the aggressor nation that threatens or attacks us.  

Related Reading:

Ralph Peters: "Mesmerized by Elections, We Forgot Freedom"

Assad's "Moral Obscenity" Does Not Justify Obscenity of Sacrificial Military Intervention—by Ari Armstrong 

Winning the Unwinnable War: America's Self-Crippled Response to Islamic Totalitarianism—Edited by Elan Journo

Bush's Collapsing "War on Terror"

Iraqi Democracy vs. Freedom

No comments: