NY Times Notices Moderate Syrian Rebels Moderately Committing Moderate War Crimes...Tweet by David Burge
- I enjoy reading Tweets by David Burge because he puts this entire Syrian dilemma into perspective. Last week, after the photo appeared showing the Kerry's enjoying a nice evening out with Assad and his wife two years ago, Burge Tweeted: "If Kerry wanted Assad toppled, he should have killed him with the dessert fork."
- In my previous post ("Profiles In Stupidity: There Is No "Good" or "Right" Side In Syria"), I made it a point to reinforce Burge's observations. Also, if we do take some type of military action, we will certainly be facing the devil we don't know. What we do know now about these rebels is many are bad guys. In fact, the NY Times of all publications (historically Obama suck ups) ran a piece today entitled, "Brutality Of Syrian Rebels Posing Dilemma In The West." Accompanying the article is a video of Syrian rebels executing 7 Syrian soldiers.
- But there is also another important fact that we cannot overlook. America has been involved in countless conflicts throughout our history. We've not been an isolationist nation by any stretch of the imagination. Excluding our earlier conflicts and wars, our modern history includes using our troops in Central America, Haiti, the Balkans, Grenada, Vietnam and the Middle East. In addition, we entered those many of those conflicts for a variety of different reasons. In WWII, we were attacked by Japan, and we entered the European theatre to help our allies fight the Nazis. In Vietnam, we helped the South fight the Northern Communists (at least, that was one of the reasons). Clinton's decision to go into the Balkans was to prevent more genocide. We went into Afghanistan to hunt down and kill those responsible for 9/11. Our intervention in Libya was to change the regime (one of the same reasons for our attacking Iraq the second time around). And, quite frankly, some of our interventions were done to protect our commercial interests.
- Syria is different. In fact, I just heard a report that support for intervention into Syria is less than the support we had for Vietnam and Iraq. And I contend the reasons for this lack of support are two-fold: The ambiguity and ambivalence of American leadership in the White House and Congress and the ambiguity of who are the good vs. bad guys in Syria. In most of our previous conflicts, we usually knew who the bad guys were, e.g. Nazis, Communists, Jihadists, etc. In the case of Syria, it appears the bad guys are on both sides of the red line.
- It's also undeniable this administration's foreign policy--from Libya to Egypt---has been inept. In fact, CNN's own Obama suck-up, Fareed Zakaria, had to admit Obama's foreign policy is a "case study on how not to do foreign policy."
- So what are we left with as of today? In my opinion, we're left with a confused leadership resulting in a confused strategy. But, just as disturbing, our allies are as confused as we are. That's what happens when a country's leadership exhibits chronic inconsistency and vacillation. In turn, that type of behavior encourages tyrants to do very bad things. In the case of Syria, both sides are doing very bad things.
Vice President Biden Said Today That Syria Must Be Held Accountable. Unfortunately, The Obama Administration Has Never Employed An Accountant, So They Have No Idea How To Do That...Leno
- Once again, Americans are being played by the political class. While arguments can be made for either staying out of Syria or responding to the Syrian regime, the fact is there are bad people on both sides of that conflict. As the chart above clearly shows, it's complicated in the Middle East (published in the Washington Post this week).
- Moreover, with this administration's track record of picking losers (e.g. Egypt and Libya), can you trust it to pick the good guys in the Syrian conflict?
- It's undeniable that Assad is a bad guy. His regime is responsible for the murder of over 1000,000 civilians. It appears he used chemical weapons on innocent civilians. It's also undeniable that many of the rebels are linked to Jihadists and al-Qaeda linked foreign fighters. In fact, in the last two years, the al-Qaeda terrorists have been playing a more prominent role in fighting the Assad regime. Last June, the Washington Examiner + the Economist reported that 7 of the 9 rebel groups are Islamists.
- So an obvious question has to be posed (one I have not heard posed often enough): If we take Assad out will we be left with al-Qaeda backed foreign fighters and/or crazed Jihadists or both? The obvious answer is yes. Where are they going to go? Like all Jihadists, they too will want to assume power. We learned that lesson in Egypt after we supported the Muslim Brotherhood.
- In addition to those dilemmas we have a reluctant president. As Michael Goodwin of the NY Post wrote recently, "... {President Obama} whose chronic ambivalence about American leadership emboldens tyrants." Even USA Today had to admit "Obama's bungling on Syria complicates the response."
"Obama will seek Congressional approval. Translation: Obama will seek somebody else to blame for this disaster." Tweet By David Burge
- Recall Pres. Obama, John F. Kerry, Chuck Hagel, Joe Biden and many other democrats who made their political careers out of bashing the "cowboys" of the Bush administration? Yet, when it comes to the "civil war" in Syria, it's time to engage AFTER TWO YEARS have passed and over 100,000 people have been killed. But now, as the hypocrites like Pelosi and Wasserman want to remind us, it's about the children. Saddam Hussein gassed children. Where were you then? In fact, where have you been in the last two years? We do know Kerry and his wife had a nice dinner with Assad two years ago. We also know Hillary proclaimed Assad a "reformer" in 2011.
- As I've written in several of my previous posts ("The Administration's Other Big Failure: Foreign Policy" and "Banging The War Drums: Trying To Rescue Obama From His Own Rhetoric"), the inept foreign policy of this administration is beginning to be played out for the entire country and world to see. From the disaster in Egypt in backing the Muslim Brotherhood to the killing of our staff in Benghazi to the failed "reset" with Russia (and Russia moved another war ship to Syria where they already have a naval base) to Iraq returning to civil war and al-Qaeda branching out, we're now witnessing our friends---like the United Kingdom---avoiding us. Even worse, our enemies appear to no longer fear us.
- But all of this should not surprise anyone. When we have an administration that abandons its leadership as a global force for good, we get what we see in Syria and in many other parts of the world today. As Rich Lowry of the National Review said recently, "As the Syria crisis burns hotter, President Obama has never looked so feckless. He has perfected the art of speaking reproachfully and carrying little or no stick."
- It was clear that the administration boxed themselves in with the "red-line" proclamation last year. So there was only one way out---only one other option: Abandon the war-like rhetoric of one week ago and consult with Congress. As David Burge Tweeted (above), Obama will have someone else to blame for this disaster.
