Syria

So the war drums are beating. All across the Potomac the War Party is out with their paint, dancing.

?But should we “respond”. ?If so, how – ie to what degree. Trashing an airbase didn’t seem to make much difference, so ?how many do we have to trash now.

?More importantly, why. ?What is our national interest.

Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Syria

  1. MLHMLH says:

    Indeed: what is our national interest over there? Could be a distraction from Mueller and his cronies.

  2. Vald the MisspellerVald the Misspeller says:

    I’m skeptical that Assad was the one who used the gas but even if he did, so what. Just because Obama drew a red line in 2013 doesn’t mean Trump has to honor it 5 years later.

    As weapons of mass destruction go, chemical agents have, thus far at least, proven to be comparatively ineffective, having been used dozens of times since the beginning of the 20th century. By far the biggest test came during WWI with over 50 thousand tons of gas used by both sides. As a percentage of total deaths and injuries, gas contributed approximately 1% and 5% respectively.

    All this makes me wonder why our fearless leaders get so jacked about chemical weapons.(Alas, this now includes President Trump.) My guess is it’s just a pretext for the ‘Bombs Away’ lobby in DC to engage in their favorite hobby of diplomacy by tomahawk.

    I really wish we could avoid these high-explosive demonstration projects and save our military assets for a more appropriate use — the invasion of California for instance.

  3. DevereauxDevereaux says:

    An argument can be made that showing a willingness to use force has benefits – thinking along the lines of the Fat guy. Still, we already used force once here – and while it looked good, it seemed to do little.

    IF there can be an argument for almost ANY involvement in Syria, then it ought to be with a goal in mind other than “being there”. That goal then should be taken on vigorously and achieved. I really don’t care about Russians, Iranians, etc. We apparently already had a bunch of Russian mercs attack us there and get their asses handed to them.

    But in all honesty, I still don’t see any national interest expressed. Yup, Assad is a nasty guy. Lots of nasty guys around the world. Fat boy is more of a risk to us and our allies than Assad. And honestly, I rather like seeing the Russians and Iranians mired up in Syria. There’s a definition of a shithole country if there ever was one.

  4. DevereauxDevereaux says:

    Interesting interview on Fox with Martha McSally. She attempted to make the point that our national interest was to see that WMD’s were not used, and that Iran did not get a land bridge via Iraq and Syria to Israel.

    So I guess the real question is, ?id Iran is our enemy and damaging a national vital interest, then why don’t we simply attack Iran. Use of proxies shouldn’t isolate them from consequences.

    • MLHMLH says:

      I don’t get what all the hullabaloo is about McSally. grow a pair of ovaries? really?

      Is there a bunch of lithium in Syria? You know: it’s for Elon.

      • DevereauxDevereaux says:

        I think she is in a tight race with Ward and the PTB want to keep her – not sure why but ?a reliable vote. McConnell is about personal power; us – not so much I think.

    • Vald the MisspellerVald the Misspeller says:

      I can see our national interest in seeing that so-called WMD’s aren’t used on us. Syria, not so much. And I don’t get how taking away Assad’s remaining chemical weapons is going to have any effect on whether or not Iran gets a “land bridge” to Israel. First, they’ve pretty much got one now, since Iran, Iraq and Lebanon are already majority Shia, and the dominate Alawite minority of Syria are also,at least nominally, Shia. Secondly, Iran can already use it’s proxy militia of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Syria to hassle Israel. I mean it’s not like the IRGC is going to be rolling tanks from Tehran to Jerusalem any time soon.

      McSally comes across as a younger John McCain in drag: and ex attack plane driver always jonesing to bomb something. (I hope Kelli Ward wins the AZ primary.)

  5. DevereauxDevereaux says:

    Not disagreeing with you, Vlad. There is clearly a War Party out there, and Graham is among them. So is Asshat McCain.

    I think to your point, we need to have a clearly laid out national interest reason. Unfortunately, that concept has not been talked about much by ANY politician for a long time. Probably because it would take thinking and reasoning and creating a coherent policy.

    I believe Bolton is also in the War Party. He’s a bit more toned down I think. Nikki Haley is turning out to be one of the best UN types in years. She has the ability to speak strongly without necessarily committing us. Kind of nice.

  6. MJBubba says:

    I like to see us bomb a Russian proxy, especially with Russian defenses failing to keep our bombs from reaching their targets.
    Obama and Kerry invited the Russians into Syria, thinking that Putin would keep his word to neutralize the chemical weapons there. So not only did Obama’s “red line” become a laughingstock and a symbol of American weakness, it also brought the Russians into the Middle East, where they had been absent for the previous two decades.
    It is in America’s interest to see that there are consequences for using chemical weapons, wherever that happens. It is also in America’s interest to keep a lid on Syria, which was churned up because Obama pulled us out of Iraq and allowed ISIS to grow into a real threat to Bashar Assad. It would be in America’s interest to see some sort of peace in Syria that would allow five million refugees to return. It would be in America’s interest to see Russian influence in the Middle East contained, and to see Iran’s influence in the Middle East contained.
    Barging into Syria with guns blazing is not the answer. But isolationist withdrawal would be a disaster; the power vacuum would allow the bad guys to make mischief.

  7. DevereauxDevereaux says:

    Not sure I agree. BG’s will act badly, not because we’re “not engaged” but because they’re BG’s. The question of how much trouble they cost is open – to what and who they cost the trouble.

    Yes, peace in Syria would be nice. Perhaps there might have been a bigger chance of that had Assad not actively been such a PITA to all his neighbors. Just down the road is Jordan. It too is muslim, and a token enemy of Israel. But it has learned to mind its own business, and to figure out how to live with Israel. They are peaceful, prosperous, and overall good neighbors. ISIS also challenged them, but you didn’t see the country descend into chaos.

    Trump has hardly acted “isolationist”. That term often is bandied about when someone isn’t bellicose enough. Trump has identified our national interest well – trade. He has been tough on the Fat Boy AND on China OVER Fat Boy. Back here all the “War Party” have been quaking over confrontation with China. But Trump has not blinked.

    Russia may have “returned” to the Mideast, but it has been at real cost of money, materiel, and manpower. They cannot be overjoyed at their role there in Syria. Despite their presence, Syria is no closer to a solution, and Iran is not going away. Right now we have very little direct involvement in that mess. Isn’t that nice!

Leave a Reply