It’s my first post, so how about if I start with something light? Like Syria?

Greetings oh lost ones! Well, you have to be lost to have found yourselves here, reading the first post of an obscure blog. I hope, however, that after reading this you will have found it worthwhile.

I started this blog to, there’s no other way to put this, vent. We find ourselves in perilous times, and there’s no better example than what we’re currently facing in Syria.

Ever since the Assad government has been accused of using chemical weapons, there has been a steady drumbeat of war from the White House and 10 Downing Street, among other places. The international community (which apparently does not include China or Russia) needs to respond!, proclaimed Obama. Yet Cameron found himself unable to have the UK join the US in that response due to Parliament’s refusal to play along. With NATO deciding not to join in the fun, Obama found himself isolated. As result, instead of deciding to order military strikes without going to Congress, he felt compelled to seek authorization – for political cover if anything else.

Here, then, lays the opportunity. Obama’s request to Congress for authorization is probably based on the presumption that he’ll get it. If what happened in Parliament, however, has taught anything, is that such an action is not a forgone conclusion. It is perfectly clear that the vast majority of the American people have no more appetite for more war, especially one that could lead to a wider Middle East conflict, if not World War 3. So the public may able to be in a position to put pressure on their representatives to actually say “No” to this foolhardy adventure. To wit, I encourage anyone and everyone to ask their representatives whether they can answer the following nine questions without blanching:

  1. What direct threat does the Syrian government pose to American security?
  2. How does a civil war in Syria threaten the security of the United States?
  3. Are we truly certain that the Syrian government is responsible for the chemical attack in Arda, seeing that: i) the US government’s assessment is based on the doubtful premise that the one hundred videos attributed to the attack could not have been fabricated by the Syrian opposition, and ii) there are credible reports indicating that Saudi intelligence was behind the attack?
  4. Is maintaining American prestige in the world a sufficient reason to go to war against Syria?
  5. By assisting the Syrian opposition in its war against Assad, are we also assisting Al-Queda?
  6. If the Syrian opposition – which includes elements responsible for one of the most horrific terrorist attacks in American history – takes over the government in Syria, could that lead to the security of the United States becoming more vulnerable?
  7. If the United States claims that its strikes against Syria will be limited within certain parameters, what criteria will be used to decide that military strikes will no longer be necessary?
  8. If the United States decided to attack Syria, in whatever limited form it decides to take, what is the risk that the conflict could be expanded to engulf Hezbollah, Israel, Turkey, Iran, Russia, and China?
  9. What will the United States do to prevent the war from spreading outside of Syria?

So let’s ask away, and see what comes back. The answers we receive ought to be, if nothing else, entertaining.

This entry was posted in Foreign Policy and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to It’s my first post, so how about if I start with something light? Like Syria?

  1. peteybee says:

    pipeline politics, pure and simple.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s