The media is droning on about the civil war in Syria. John Kerry told us that there is incontrovertible evidence showing that the Syrian government used nerve gas on their own citizens, including children. Now some folks have speculated that the nerve gas came from the rebels instead of the government. The Israeli's supposedly have intercepted a communication where Assad told the military NOT to use the chemical weapons. I guess that incontrovertible evidence was actually controvertible after all.
Last week, I heard Secretary of State Kerry saying that the Rebels aren't all Al Qaeda sympathizers, but only 10%-25% are. Wow, that would still amount to thousands of Al Qaeda types in the rebel forces. So, do we back the rebels that have thousands of Al Qaeda operatives and give them arms or support? Or, should we support the government that is backed by Iran and Hamas? I don't like to hear about women and children getting caught up in a nasty conflict like this. I don't even like to hear about men getting killed or maimed this way. On the other hand, there isn't any good outcome that will come from American intervention.
How would this go down? First, Assad has moved all of his weapons and forces out amongst the people in neighborhoods. Attacking these areas is the only thing that could make a real difference. It would be impossible to expect a conflict with targets in residential areas to be conducted without the so called "collateral damage." Somehow, the Middle Eastern people and most of the world media expect us to conduct bloodless wars that don't kill anyone. That is just not possible. How is it that Al Qaeda uses commercial air liners filled with regular citizens to knock down large buildings filled with more regular citizens, but we must meet the standard of killing only members of the military. Of course, the rebels and Al Qaeda or Hamas are all just regular citizens. As soon as we kill a terrorist or blow up his house, the news media reports that a U.S. strike killed three civilians and destroyed a house with kids inside. The U.S. does it by accident or by attacking a terrorist fighter, and they do their terrorist "death and destruction thing" totally on purpose, but we are terrible. I don't get it.
So, our current MessAPolitico in the White House wants us to go over and mess around in Syria's mess. As tragic and disheartening as it is, we just need to stay out of it. I don't want to see our military spending a lot of money and getting our young people killed fighting in a war that has nothing to do with America. In the end, both sides will still hate us. Even though Assad is an evil, oppressive, murderous dictator, the replacement government may actually be worse. History says the new government will be just as bad, and it may be run by wacko, Islamic radicals that want to take any weapons of mass destruction in Syria and use them on Israel or the U.S. Terrorists don't have to figure out how to deliver chemical weapons to America or Israel and worry about the political fallout. They will just walk over with the weapons and set them off, killing themselves and everyone in the area. You don't have to deal with political fallout after you have gone to visit Allah. The best way to deal with this type of situation is to stay far, far away.
Is this conflict the beginning of World War III? It might be, if we get involved. John Kerry and Barack Obama have both said that there will absolutely be no "boots on the ground." This will be a very limited conflict. Are they right? We just don't know. That depends on the response from Syria, Iran, Russia, Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc., etc. What if Syria attacks back? Do we still just pack up our cruise missiles and go home? What if terrorist attacks break out across the U.S., and the groups tell the media that they are responding on behalf of Syria? Do we run from the conflict or put "boots on the ground?" Is this conflict still just a few, limited missile strikes? Where does it end? That's really not up to us.
So, all of you folks in the MessAPolitico, what is the benefit to America? I know you say that we must respond to show that chemical weapons won't be tolerated. How do you deliver that rational message to irrational zealots? You can't, and you won't. Stay home. And, next time you are thinking about running off at the mouth with threats, learn to shut up.
No comments:
Post a Comment