YOU CAN'T BE SYRIAS!

With the Devil, er, Vladimir Putin whispering in his ear, Assad The Good Hearted is now promising to get rid of his chemistry set. It may, in fact, get us out of this mess. One writer remarked that by getting his head stuck in the bowling ball return, Obama brilliantly tricked Putin into pantsing him.

 

 

Prior to this, the most “anti-war” president in U.S. history wanted to bomb another country and his Democrat cheerleaders were John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi. And France. We are now living in Bizarro World.

 

Lessons Obama has learned about foreign policy:

 

1. Foreign policy is hard.
2. Some people just aren’t nice.
3. No, Putin didn’t just need a hug.

 

Putin looks like a statesman and Obama might as well have rolled up to the G20 summit in a clown car. True, there was never a good option on Syria but now the options are bad and really bad. At least he seems skeptical about the new plan and bombing may still be on the table. While the always sober and reasonable (crazy and paranoid) Glen Beck says that even a person coming out of surgery with a drip bag of heroin coursing through their veins would know that attacking Syria is a bad idea, it’s not that simple.

 

Below are some arguments for and against bombing.

 

Against:

1. Bombing Assad helps Al Qaeda: Influential Israeli blogger Yoni Tidi is a cheerleader for Assad. He quotes Salafist rebels saying that once Damascus is taken, it is on to Jerusalem. Assad is safer and more predictable. Better the devil you know…

2. Chaos will ensue. Remember Iraq?: 1. Assad gets desperate and attacks Israel. Israel responds. WWIII. 2. Assad loses. Terrorists take over. All hell breaks loose. WWIII. 3. Bombing builds sympathy for Assad and Iran gains influence. 4. Assad doesn’t care and uses more chemical weapons. 5. Bombing radicalizes more against the U.S. (I know. Does anything we do matter?) 6. Terrorists retaliate months or even years down the line. 7. Terrorists get ahold of chemicals weapons. Oops. 8. Who the heck knows?

4. Americans don't want it: A recent poll: 58% against attacking, 33 for.

5. Not in our national security interest: What do we get out of this? They’re weak militarily. It’s not going to make us any friends. They don’t even have much oil.

6. An “unbelievably small” strike won't do anything. Assad has already moved his planes and equipment and moved civilians into target areas, providing a real opportunity for dead child propaganda, a Mid East staple. 

7. Saving credibility isn't a reason to attack. Meh, so we lied. Doesn’t everybody? 

8. We can’t save the world: A variation is the “To Hell with Them” doctrine. We’ve spent much blood and treasure defending Muslims in 5 recent wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia) and they still hate us. Let the ingrates blow each other to bits.

9. Evidence is weak: Well, we didn’t have video of OJ either but….

Fence Sitters:

10. We bomb and then what? It seemed fun and easy when Saddam statues were being toppled. Then everything turned to camel dung. Better have a good plan this time or…see #2.

11. The resolution needs to be narrowed. Don’t want to give Obama a blank check. “No ground troops. Truuuust us.”

For:

12. What are we waiting for?  Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead. A good bombing keeps the rust off the trigger finger.

13. OK, but make it small: I guess we have to but we don’t want to make anybody mad.

14. Ok, but make it big: What’s the use of bombing if it doesn’t have a major impact? Take out Assad or weaken him enough for the rebels to do it. 

15. Don't want to embolden Iran: Iran is the real target. Bombing slows their spreading influence. 

16. U.S. credibility at stake: We’ll look weak if we don’t. A weak America is bad for international stability. We scared Khadafi into giving up his WMD program. Other dictators are watching.

17. It's the American thing to do: Do it for the children! The video of foaming, writhing, kindergarteners is hard to watch.

18. Must maintain norms against chemical weapons use: Rightly banned a century ago, they’re just too terrible. If we don’t stop this, we’ll get more of the same.

Omnipotentblog was FOR bombing before he was against it. (A crack at John Kerry, ha ha.) Why? #18. Want more gassed children? Do nothing. Simple as that. If nobody responds, we should stop pretending chemical weapons are banned. Take Assad out? No, but respond nonetheless. Syria’s plan to give up WMD’s, even if it’s fake, may be enough for us to save face without bombing. Also, Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah, all Shi’ite terrorists, are now fighting Al Qaeda Sunni terrorists, a dream come true. But there are other considerations, notably a set of unbelievably complicated geopolitical factors. K.T. McFarland believes Putin’s rout of Obama is a terrible development. Russia’s foreign policy goals are: 1. How do we screw the U.S. 2. How can we make some money out of this, and 3. How do we take over the world. Russian/Iranian dominance of a region that still provides most the world’s oil would be a nightmare. Allied with every bad actor on the planet,  Russia needs a port in the Mediterranean to project power and avoid having to go through the narrow Bosphorus where Turkish teenagers could sink their fleet with sling shots. But it’s even more complicated. Though Syria doesn’t have much oil, they do have plans for a giant pipeline. They chose one out of Iran and Iraq versus Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Maybe that’s why the Saudis and other Gulf states have sent big money and arms to the rebels and have even offered to pay the U.S for a strike. Out of the goodness of their hearts, of course. Lately Sunni nations have been directly asking the U.S. to overtly support them against Iran. Sounds tricky.

Foreign policy is not for kids. Obama has muddled from one debacle to another. When you are so naïve to think that the world’s problems stem from colonialism and American bullying, there could not be another outcome. Omnipotentblog thinks Obama never wanted to bomb Syria in the first place. If so, he slipped on a banana peel and landed on his feet. Right now we have Iran, a country with nuclear ambitions aching to reincarnate the Persian empire and Russia, a country with nuclear weapons aching to recreate a Stalinist Soviet empire. What could possibly go wrong?