With the drumbeat going on for intervention in Syria, I was waiting for some new media conservatives to come out in favor of it. I did not have to wait long. Mitt Romney has been hammering Obama on the issue of not doing anything on Syria.
Now, in column in the New York Post, S.E. Cupp came out pleading for American intervention in Syria.
This crescendo is only going to grow in the next few days. As Romney and others call for American intervention in Syria, there are a few questions that need to be asked before we jump head long into that misadventure.
First, what is the compelling American interest here? Bashar Assad is someone who deserves to meet a very gruesome end for what he has done to his people, but what is the compelling American interest in replacing him?
Some argue that stopping the mass murder and human rights abuses in Syria is our interest. Really? What about the other hundred nations that are human rights abusers? Does this mean we have to intervene in those nations as well? Which nation is next after Syria? Iran? Zimbabwe? Yemen?
For all of his crimes, Assad has not been trying to start a war with Israel and a greater Middle East war. There is something to be said for that. It is in America’s interest for the Middle East not to go up in the flames of another war.
Here’s another interesting question for the intervention crowd. What is going to replace the Assad Regime? Do they realize we can do worse? In fact, our interventions this past year in the Middle East have been nothing short of a disaster, with every deposed regime being replaced by something worse. If Assad is gone, who takes over? Hezbollah? Someone tell me that would be better for America. Can you imagine another nation under Hezbollah’s control?
If we intervene, how are we going to pay for it and how are we going to pull it off?
We have been at war for almost 11 years. Does anyone remember that Iraqi oil was going to help pay for the Iraq liberation? Oops that did not happen. Instead we have foot the bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. George W. Bush was no Ronald Reagan when it came to the Defense budget but since the Party of Treason took over, the Defense budget has been slashed.
Our military is worn out. Not just our soldiers but also our equipment. Recently an Air Force General wrote a story about his son flying the same F-15 fighter that he had flown as a brand new pilot thirty years earlier. Not only is the equipment old but also ten years of war has worn a lot of it out. Another campaign is only going to make a bad situation worse. Does anyone believe that Barack Obama is going to agree to increase Defense spending?
There is no compelling American interest here. There is a real possibility we could end up worse off than we are now. And there is no explanation how we are going to pay for it or even how we are going to pay for the equipment we need to intervene in Syria.
For those who want us to get involved in Syria, please answer all of those questions first. Then we can talk.
America is not the world’s policeman. We have enough troubles with the fights where there is a legitimate American interest. Why should we pick up another where, as we say in the south, we don’t have a dog in this fight?
Our compelling interest in Syria is to keep the Russians from gaining a Mediterranean naval port...they're currently working to establish a large facility at al Ladhiqiyah ... the Soviet Navy was able to establish a small facility at Tarabulus, the port of Tripoli, Libya, but it was not adequate for stationing of large surface or submarine combatants -- and when Qadaffi's regime fell, the Russians lost the use of that port ... I think because they wouldn't pay the new Islamist bosses there enough large bribes...The Soviets' and now the Russian fleets were bottled up in the Black Sea and could get out only by transiting the Sea of Marmara and the Dardenelles Strait...something our ally, Turkey, allowed only rarely...We still have a pretty decent relationship with Turkey even though the Islamist government there demands more and more 'tribute' from us to retain our stations and faclities there...so for now, at least, the Russians must play out their Syrian gambit.
If the reinvigorated Russian Federation Navy gains the port al Ladhiqiyah they'll be able to move their entire Black Sea Fleet to the Med...to challenge our fleet, and potentially interdict Suez Canal oil shipments to Europe where we have manifold vital interests...and this calculus does not even consider the flow of vital strategic materials for our industries that transit the Med.
In my view, we should do nothing to either help or hinder the Assad government or the insurgents...our efforts must be directed toward establishing relationships with the leadership of Hamah Province (where Homs is located, as well), and if necessary, help the Hamah Province people break away from whatever emerges after the Syrian Arabs finish chopping each other up.
The Russians are keenly aware of our interest in derailing their drive for a large, fully capable Mediterranean port so they are working both sides in the civil war there...but mostly they're backing Assad; with large shipments of modern weapons being delivered through (guess where...) the port at al Ladhiqiyah...
I don't care a whit about the welfare or safety or life or death of Arab Muslims...but we have a significant interest in the specific region of Syria...and we must protect that interest...the rest of that horrible place (I've been there) can sink or rot, as far as I'm concerned.
wow, thanks for that insight that I have heard NOWHERE else. And I believe your analysis is spot on.
The Russian fleet is in such bad shape many of its ships cannot even sail.
We need to tell Putin to shutup and give us back our $65 Billion we fronted him to get back on his "Democratic" feet when the USSR fell on its face in 1990 !
Now the Chief of the KGB is de El Presidente' of Russia and is BACK !!
Did you forget that the cold war ended in 1989?
No it didn't
America has fought continually since 9/11. Our soilders are tired, they have been away from friends and famiies long enough. We do no need to intervene in another combat situation. Let the useless, debate club of the UN handle it and leave America out of it both miitarily and financially. We can not police the world. We have probems at home that need to be addressed. What wi we gain from intervening in another civil war in a foreign country? More debt, death, and disapproval of the world calling for us to intervene.
I can not say that he is wrong about growing and uprooting America. If you question that, just look at the BS we tolerate from the muslims that are already here.
George W said we were not "doing any nation building" (-:)
We need to quit "stirring the pot" in arabia !
Get the hell out of there.
Since when is it our responsibility? Saudi Arabia has plenty of money and influence. If the Arab Muslims are so passionate about their "religion of peace" let's see them step up and stop it. Just for grins let's imagine what a US intervention would cost. Several billion dollars we don't have and several thousand lives we cannot afford to give for a people who would STILL hate us just like Iraq. Yeah Iraq.
Doesn't it just warm your heart when you see their spontaneous displays of gratitude for spending a trillion dollars and 4500+ lives to rid them of a bloodthirsty tyrant?
Syria? Let the Arabs stick their hands in a dog fight. I say let the world go to hell for a while. Our assistance is NOT appreciated.
You are absolutely right ! Let the "House of Saud" with Mecca & Medina (The Muslim Cities of their faith) Keep the peace in "The Sands of Arabia".
The "Only" reason we would "spit in that hell hole" is for the "Oil" that is beneath their feet !
They know that "No country in the whole world" has any use for Arabia and their "ruthless, hateful, customs of "justice".
So, every "Civilized" country in the World should "shun this bunch of Heathens" and isolate them from "Society" !
This is "The" Message they need to hear from the "World Community".
Obama is a Pansy,he'll let people,including children,continue being slaughtered.