Monday, September 9, 2013

"Our enemies are killing each other"

Just for the record, I'm against military action against Syria. Act for America lays out why in their petition:

Dear President Obama,

We agree that the civil war in Syria is a humanitarian disaster.

However, America does not need to be dragged into another war that will stress our already exhausted military and weak economy.

Our enemies are killing each other with Iran/Hezbollah/Assad on one side and the Al-Qaida factions/Muslim Brotherhood/salafists on the other.

America's intervention in Libya and Egypt proved to be grave mistakes that undermined our respect and stature on the international stage. Enough of supporting enemies who hate us, costing us the lives of our precious sons and daughters with no clear objective or strategy in sight.

A strong majority of Americans don't want us to get dragged into another Middle Eastern civil war. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll found that 60% of Americans do not support U.S. involvement and 89% oppose arming the rebels.

Therefore, we appeal to you in the strongest voice:

Don't drag us into another Middle Eastern Civil War and don't arm the rebel factions in Syria.

It's painful to look at how badly Obama is doing in his attempt to gain support for his military action. For example, Adam Kinzinger is a Representative from Illinois who is for military action:

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., on Sunday said he had offered the White House his help to rally support for a strike on Syria but had been ignored.

“A week and a half ago my office actually reached out to the White House and said ‘we support the strike on Syria, we’re going to help you round up support if you need it,’” he said on ABC’s “This Week.”

“I haven’t heard back from the White House yet — I haven’t heard back from anyone,” he continued. “I don’t even know who my White House liaison is, who’s supposed to be creating this relationship.”


“He’s trying to build a relationship with Congress and there’s a trust deficit,” he added.

"A trust deficit." Republicans are always understating things. Perma-hawk Peter King is also lamenting the poor job Obama is doing.

“I just wish the president had laid this out better,” said King on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“I wish that he would be more of a commander-in-chief than a community organizer,” he added.

“He’s commander in chief, for one year he said a red line was there and then the red line was crossed and he sends [Secretary of State John] Kerry and [Secretary of Defense Chuck] Hagel out,” said King. “We’re told Congress is not needed at the 11th hour. He brings in Congress and then he says it’s not his red line.

“I can’t imagine Harry Truman or John Kennedy or Ronald Reagan or Dwight Eisenhower ever putting a nation in a position like this on a military vote,” King added.

I like Peter King, he has done great work in exposing Islamic fascism and lunacy and he is usually in lock-step with Act for America. And truthfully, I really thought about this one, read Bill Kristol's thoughtful argument supporting action and listened to other supporters make their arguments (Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, et al.) I see the point, but I don't think anything we end up doing would do a lick of good for us or anybody else in the world. Obama doesn't want to do this, he's putting too many restrictions on the action and telegraphing them all. It's really a lose-lose at this point, and just because Obama flushed his credibility it doesn't mean America is going over the cliff with him. Andrew McCarthy said it best: "American credibility on the international stage is bound up in the recognition of, and willingness to act on, vital national interests. It is not embodied by any single political actor – indeed, when one branch of government acts against the national interest, our system is designed to enable the other branches to put a stop to it."


  1. Yeah, someone said it better than I ever could: "The enemy of my enemy is still my enemy." Let Allah sort it out.


  2. I don't have a philosophical problem with getting rid of Middle East dictators on general principles of human dignity (as in Iraq & Afghanistan under W). I agree with W that "for decades we ha[ad] tolerated tyranny for the sake of stability, and received little stability and much tyranny". So smacking Assad in order to hasten his removal for the thriving of self-government is a good thing in the abstract.

    But the problem with the proposed Obama strike is that it has no ultimate point. If the point is simply to "maintain credibility", I'm afraid that the good ship Credibility sailed some time ago, thanks to Obama's dithering and lack of seriousness. And if the strike is in effect merely symbolic, or serves to "level the playing field", it is at best useless and at worst immoral (in that it prolongs violence and offends solidarity).

    The US military should only be called into action when required to effect a solution that is in the best interests of the United States specifically, and humanity in general. This proposed action does not accomplish that, and should not be undertaken.

    1. I don't have a philosophical problem with getting rid of Middle East dictators on general principles of human dignity.

      I agree.

      I'm afraid that the good ship Credibility sailed some time ago, thanks to Obama's dithering and lack of seriousness.

      Perfect! The Good Ship Credibility -- I'm going to steal that, man.