Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Iraq and Syria

The 10 year anniversary of the attack of Iraq is upon us and the anti-Bush stories are flowing.   The more powerful come from ex-soldiers who feel Bush lied.  Most of the mainstream articles just insinuate Bush lied, mainly about the stockpiles of WMDs.  

Obama has never said Bush lied, only that he was dumb.  The president ended the war in Iraq, despite the war continuing on without us.   A war is going on in Syria as well, completely apart from Bush's evil handiwork, and lo and behold WMDs are a part of that war, too.

Today Obama reiterated his 'red line' on those WMDs in front of the Israeli people: if Assad uses them, he should expect consequences.  While Iraq war anniversary stories lament the estimated 100,000 people who died in Iraq--blamed on the presence of US troops--70,000 are now estimated dead in Syria without a trace of the United States. Both wars were/are presumably for the purposes of regime change and a chance at self-governance.

Meanwhile Saddam had already used WMDs and had a ten year history of fleecing international bodies and working with America-hating terrorists while attacking his neighbors.   Wait though, Assad's father also used WMDs, back in the early 80s with perhaps 30,000 being killed.  Son now works with Iran, another sponsor of terror.  If Bashar uses chemicals (these didn't come from Rummy) as Saddam did; and Obama steps in with our military to stop it, how is that much different than our meddling in Iraq?

Any US involvement would be complicated by their relationship with Iran and Hizballah, which could produce a regional conflagration.  Additionally, if Assad were to use his stuff it would suggest rank desperation, meaning any American troops inserted would be in jeopardy of future WMD attacks.

But the line is drawn--we're committed.   America cannot go back on the line.  Doing so would greatly weaken us on the world stage and embolden the tinpots.  So if an attack is confirmed something has to happen. Chances are it might be dumb as compared to Iraq.   But if small chemical attacks happen, as presumed the other day, and the politicos manage to keep them under the rug--and we don't do anything--the death toll will continue to rise while the axis between Syria, Iran and Russia will strengthen over time.   That could also be considered dumb.

Of course, the least dumbest route might be for Obama to completely hide our clandestine role in arming the Syrian rebels, with help of the incorrigible media, until right before Assad is pulled out in the street and beaten to death, whence he could jump in and take credit.  We'll see. 

No comments: