The Syrian issue makes for some strange coalitions. When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted yesterday, Democratic Committee Chair Robert Menendez stood with John McCain to support a U.S. attack. Sen. Udall voted with Sen. Rubio to oppose it.
As every regular reader of this blog knows, I worked very hard in 2008 and 2012 to elect Obama. I’ve supported almost every administration initiative, proposal, and appointee. On Syria, however, I sincerely believe his proposed military action will fail to accomplish any meaningful result and may lead to terrible consequences for the U.S. and the Middle East.
Obama was one of the few Senators who voted against George W. Bush’s attack on Iraq. At the time it was argued that this country’s prestige and credibility demanded that we carry out military action. We had good intelligence that Iraq presented a threat. Yet as Senator, Obama felt military action was not justified and voted accordingly.
To me the whole credibility argument sounds like “saving face.” I have never thought much of that concept. If we do launch a missile strike and the Assad regime fires off more shells with poison gas, then what? We lose even more credibility.
Air superiority is wonderful, but we can’t win a war, or even inflict sufficient “punishment” with it. If we could, the drones used against Taliban leaders would have already won us that war.
No comments:
Post a Comment