About these ads

Syria

hezbollah hoarding

hezbollah hoarding (Photo credit: Paul Keller)

When I was young there was a story about a Polish colonel who was asked what he would do if his regiment got caught between the German and Russian armies.

His answer was, “Attack in both directions and die gloriously“.

That pretty well sums up the situation in Syria these days. There’s a war of sorts going on, not so much on each others fighters but on the civilians in the way. It’s a battle without good.

Assad’s government suppresses dissent, tortures its people and assorted other bad things. They do, do a point anyway, protect Christians. Their chief backer is Russia

On the other side are the rebels, who are heavily infiltrated byIslamic extremists, and such, even from western Europe according to some reports. They’re jihadist, pure and simple.Their chief backer appears to be Iran.

I’d call it 6-5 and pick em. All of which is bad for Syria but not really any of our business.

The kicker is that the government (at least) has WMD, nerve and/or chemical munitions in this case, which we would rather not see used.

And that leaves the question do we care enough to watch American soldiers die in this dog’s breakfast? Cause that’s what a lot of our leadership wants. Why? I haven’t a clue. Maybe they think everybody will forget we’re here if we don’t have soldiers engaged somewhere. Well, Senator McCain, or Senator Graham, or President Obama what is the objective here? And I don’t want to hear any sneering from you Europeans, NATO is driving this as well.

Look, I’m no isolationist, in truth I’m a neocon, but I think we ought to have some sort of objective before we commit to battle (even in the air). An ally we could respect would be even better.

The other thing is yesterday there were reports of the use of a chemical weapon, the reports are fragmentary and unproven, let alone who did what to whom, and why. And so now our brilliant leadership wants to tell the world that we will respond against the government if anybody uses chemical weapons?

What genius thinks it’s a good idea to let a Hezbollah terrorist decide if the United States of America is going to war.

The Republic will survive not being at war for a year (or three) especially when the commander-in-chief is a known weak reed.

Forget about it, it’s their war, let them fight it.

About these ads


Categories: Al Qaeda, Barack Obama, Diplomacy, Foreign policy, Islam, Middle East, War

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

4 replies

  1. Remember Iran (and the “Party of God” in Lebanon) are backing Assad (indeed are his puppet masters). This is really a war between Shia Islamists and Sunni Islamists (the enemies of the present regime). Anyone who is not an Islamist – should stay well away from this whole thing.

  2. Let’s see: We’ve lost and paid heavily in every war since WWII but the Gulf War and we paid heavily there and gained nothing I can identify. And for political, not military, reasons in every case. And if you can’t see any potential justifying gain in Syria, I see even less. We hardly need more spending and more dead Americans, do we? And that’s all there are to be won from what I see. And while we do have troops we can send to be killed, thus reducing future costs, WE DON’T HAVE THE MONEY!
    Your analysis of this is so obviously correct that even I can see it!

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,782 other followers

%d bloggers like this: