The Seriousness of Syria

Seriously?? Another war??  The situation over Syria and our possible intervention is very serious stuff. Chemical  warfare is no laughing matter, but is it grounds for U.S. intervention?  Secretary of State, John Kerry certainly thinks so and laid out his case to us last week, stating that we must strike back immediately for humane reasons, as well as for the security of our country, and in fact the world. Has a familiar ring to it, doesn't it?  Let's see--seems similar questions and reasons were being posed back in post 9/11/2001, only we called them chemicals, weapons of mass destruction, and the country in question was Iraq. Yes, I remember it well. President Bush was later not only criticized, but figuratively crucified for taking us to war under similar circumstances. John Kerry  was singing a very different tune then.  Never mind that we had just been attacked by terrorists , and that Iraq was suspected of being a terrorist haven. And Contrary to President Obama's usual m.o., moving ahead without congressional approval,  President Bush actually did seek and receive congress' approval before making any final decisions,  public pronouncements, or taking any action. Let us remember also that at the time there were more than adequate intelligence reports to support the premise that there were stockpiles of chemical agents hidden in Iraq for purposes of chemical warfare.  Of course,  the Democrat party later chose to completely re-write history, accuse President Bush of lying and deceiving the public, and going to war for purely personal reasons---it was a hatchet job, politically motivated, and simply too easy to assassinate Bush's character, and that of the Republican party in order to win the next election. Granted the chemicals were never found, probably because Saddam Hussein refused to allow anybody to look for them until they were either well hidden, or he had been bluffing all along---we may never know, but the reasons for going to war were just as compelling at the time, and an evil dictator was taken down  as a result. At the very least, we had made a statement--
'don't mess with us.'

And now, we are faced with another despot, Bashar Al Assad, supposedly using chemical gasses to kill his own people, for purposes of keeping control and remaining in power against "rebels", who are not happy with the Assad's regime, and are begging for our assistance. But wait--- who are they, what do they stand for, and whose side are we on, anyway?  Nobody seems to know for sure, but it is quite clear that neither could be said to be on our side. They are engaged in a civil war, each side fighting for power, but neither are known for their love of America.  In fact, there are reportedly Al Queda members mixed in with the rebels and Christians are no longer safe, and are under attack since their uprising. Whether our best interests or democracy would be better served by our intervention is  dubious and dangerous, not only to us, but Israel in particular.  Polls say that  80% of Americans do not support military action---yes, we are war weary, and tired of being called upon to help nations who do not wish us well. We are also suspicious of politicians who so transparently base their words and actions upon their own political agendas, not the will  of the people, or the long term repercussions.

It is hard to trust hypocrites. And it is harder, still, to trust a president who at best seems indecisive and uncertain, and at worst---in over his head. We are watching a man terribly torn, trying to have it both ways now----live up to his boastful "red line" threat that we would retaliate if weapons of mass destruction became part of Assad's war---and yet find a way to stall and succumb to his inability to make big decisions, particularly when it comes to matters of the Middle East. That is part of the enigma of Barack Obama---we really don't know where he stands on issues of foreign vs. the USA. His stated
theory of "leading from behind" indicates a reluctance to have America remain the leader
in world affairs---but is it practical for our long term survival, and is it working?

 Kerry's speeches were the run-up to the attack.  Hold on to your seats,  we were going to war, albeit on a limited basis, nothing too serious, just a warning. Hm-m-m, a warning?  There were rumblings among the people, polls showed we were not happy, and then the United Nations and Great Britain said they were not going to support us. Obama was virtually acting alone. Backed into a corner of his own making, he announced on Saturday that he was making a "second decision"---he would now seek approval from the Congress--but oops, Congress is on summer break.  No problem, we'll wait a while till they return and then wait some more for them to debate this issue.  Make no mistake, though, he assured us he was ready to move forward with a strike, just wanted to do it with the peoples' support via Congress. Interesting words for a president who is famous for making many dubious decisions without much compromising or seeking Congress approval---selective executive power, it would seem.  But this one was different---it was not a war anybody really wants, including probably Obama, himself.  You could cut the uncertainty, confusion, and ineptness with a knife, as he tried to explain his change of mind---his words were spoken with the usual flair and confidence, but the news still came across as surprising and a bit embarrassing, if not confirmation that we are in less than steady hands.   It wasn't so much that he had made this "second decision" to seek congressional approval, as it was the order in which he made the decision---the whole process had been hesitant, jerky, and lacked conviction and resoluteness. John Kerry actually was beginning to look and sound more presidential, but even his reasons for going to war were not enough to convince us. Had he been hung out to dry, when Obama completely turned around  and decided not to move immediately, as Kerry had  hinted we were about to do?? Why wasn't congressional approval sought first?

The questions are many:  Should we make this our war? Will the promise of "no boots on the ground" hold and a warning "limited strike" be effective, or just provoke a deeper involvement, including the risk of a global confrontation? But if we don't take a stand against chemical warfare, will we see it spread and even strike here someday? If we strike, will we be supporting the advance of anti-Americanism? Are unlawful, inhumane atrocities committed in a far away country sufficient for an act of war, and the potential loss of our son's and daughter's lives? It has been so in the past, but can we continue to afford it, as our military resources are not as strong as they were, and our own domestic financial problems are severe? And finally, can we afford not to?

Congress will surely debate all of the above, and for that there is a great measure of relief---war is serious business, and we need to be sure of what, and how this time. The fluid, escalating, revolutionary events taking place in the Middle East are frightening and even bewildering, for we do not really understand their ways, their religious passions, nor their cultural values. But their problems will touch us sooner or later, one way or the other. Whether we act and how we act will determine not only their future, but ours as well--- for we are all part of a whole, like it or not, as the world shrinks ever smaller, and our fates inevitably intertwine. It is time for true leadership, wise counsel, and certainly---prayer.

What goes around, comes around---the lessons learned from Iraq are perhaps still teaching, but if ever there was a time to bring both parties of our government together, this is it---one can only hope that they will put down their political agendas, and work co-operatively to guide us through this crisis--too bad it's taking a war to do so---and a president that is floundering.