A few articles that I’d like to recommend about Obama and Syria — and why I’m no hypocrite when it comes to supporting Iraq and not Syria

Peggy Noonan, who can be very good, talks about how Obama got us into this mess and the contortions in which he engage to save face.

Peter Wehner talks about just how bad this mess really is, even with Putin having given Obama an out.

A Politico article about the debacle in Washington and the apathy on American streets.

Jonah Goldberg brings his wry wit to the great communicator’s disastrous communication about Syria.

All I can think of is Hitler playing Neville Chamberlain.  After that humiliating debacle, England managed to make a wonderful showing during WWII.  Since then, however, she’s been a broken country, both morally and economically.  In other words, she never recovered from Chamberlain’s naive inability to stop Hitler when it would still have made a difference.

While I’m waffling on about Syria, I’d like to excuse myself of hypocrisy when it comes to not wanting the war in Syria, while supporting the war in Iraq.

First of all, I wasn’t that interested in politics during the lead-up to the Iraq War.  I didn’t have much of a position going in.  Once we were in, though, I said what I’m saying now:  Just showing up at a war is not enough.  Instead, merely showing up without planning to win is terribly dangerous.  Once in a war, you fight to win.  If you don’t win, you’ve lost.  It’s that binary.  Kerry’s statement that any American action would be “unbelievably small” reveals what a disaster we were headed to.  There is no “unbelievably small.”  There is just win or lose.  Bush may have underestimated Iraqi resistance, but his “shock and awe” approach had the right idea — you fight to win, especially in Arab lands, where the population is always drawn to the strong horse and willing to savage the weak horse.

Second, had I been more interested in the lead-up to the war in Iraq, I guess I would have felt that the proximity to 9/11 made a difference.  From the beginning, Bush argued that Iraq was a direct threat to the United States.  Whether that argument was correct is irrelevant here.  That was the argument made, based upon the best available information about chemical weapons, Hussein’s known animosity to the United States, and his support for terrorism and terrorists.  In the case of Syria, Obama hasn’t even tried to argue that the situation in Syria puts America at risk.  Instead, he’s using the “responsibility to protect” doctrine that’s the brainchild of anti-semite Samantha Powers to say that Syria presents the only time America ever should go to war:  when it’s a purely altruistic act that sees her expending blood and money without any benefit to the United States.

Third, Iraq was a population under a dictator’s heel.  Bush bet — and correctly — that many Iraqi’s would see America as a liberator, not a conqueror.  We were the good guys, fighting on behalf of the Iraqi people against the bad guy and his administration.  In Syria, Obama is trying to drop America into one of the bloodiest civil wars in our lifetimes.  Both sides are equally barbaric, unprincipled, immoral, and steeped in hatred for America.  No good can come of sending American money and, as Obama’s mission creep illustrated, American troops into this bloodbath.

Fourth, I trusted Bush and I thought his advisers were intelligent men.  Obama is a liar on a heroic scale, so I reflexively disbelieve everything that comes out of his mouth.  Add to that the fact that he has assembled a collection of hacks, buffoons, racists, and antisemites to advise him, and that he pretty much refuses to talk to people with military expertise, and you can see that I don’t want to follow him into battle.  Nor do I want America to follow him into battle.

Please feel free to call me on this (politely, of course), or to offer further distinctions between Then and Now.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Bush is sane and a patriot. Obama isn’t.
    What else do people need to justify themselves? Talking up a storm against the Left accomplishes… nothing.

  • http://www.amazon.com/Occupy-Innsmouth-ebook/dp/B009WWJ44A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1361504109&amp raymondjelli

    The difference between then and now is we were attacked and the attackers showed they were willing to use massive force against civilians with no military justification whatsoever. We knew that they would use chemical, biological and possible nuclear weapons against us because they have no compunction using it against each other.  We also knew that terrorist training bases were operating openly and should a government forbid us from attacking it we would have to attack that government. A nation building experiment like Iraq and Afghanistan was inevitable.  Hopefully it would have worked.  That it didn’t doesn’t mean we can’t be prepared to use force.  We must.  They will still use it on us.
    The pre-9/11 world was also one when we believed our real enemies were Shiites.  Then we learned all Moslems are potentially our enemies.  It broadened what we had to be prepared to do. That of course was then.
    This is now. The Leftists have said all our wars were for power.  We have a President who denounced the war on terror, denounced past American actions and blamed his predecessor in a way that was unfair and unprecedented. As usual the Left has denounced what it always intended to do. Syria is what a war for oil and power looks like.  We have no stake in it other than to be a quote global player. We will not make our citizens any safer.  Instead we will be taking sides in a war that pits Sunni, Shiite and Alawite Moslems against each other.  We will make no friends.  We’ll have enemies and so-called friends that will fund terror against us (including chemical and biological weapons), act as if we did not aid them and turn on us as soon as they can publicly.  Privately they’ll be celebrating our body counts.  We can promote Shale oil and other technologies specifically to create jobs within our country and rob our enemies of revenues.  We won’t of course.  That threatens a Democratic constituency so we’ll instead bomb Syrians for no purpose and put Americans in harms way.  Then there is Bengazi which shows this administration can not be trusted. We also support the terrorist supporting Moslem Brotherhood to such an extent it is hard to believe our so-called leaders are not on the take.

  • JKB

    An interesting claim, this Responsibility to Protect.  It is being claimed by the same government that argues it has no duty to protect an particular citizen unless it chooses, either by police, or as we saw in Benghazi, by the military going to the aid of a U.S. Consulate being overrun.  
    One similarity to England, is that having been broken, she turned to the Socialists after the war.  Perhaps that is the goal now.  
    This video from 1955 on Socialism, lays out what the socialists did to England from 1944-1951.  And as noted, even when thrown out due to failure, their policies remained, mostly intact.  And still remain in large part even after Margaret Thatcher gave Great Britain some relief.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Evil has never been once defeated by an election.

  • Ron19

    Ymarskar #4:
    Proof, please.

  • Jose

    Obama says he wants to protect Syrian children.  He should just pretend they are fetuses.
    Oh yeah – that means evil Assad still hasn’t slaughtered as many people as Planned Parenthood.

  • Jose

    All this blather about something bigger than a pinprick but smaller than unseating Assad…  Hmm…  When was the last time the U.S. gave an aggressor a bloody nose while protecting the weak, without changing the balance of power?
    It was….1991.  We kicked Saddam out of Kuwait, and stopped at the border.  Yeah, that worked out great.

  • Pingback: Bookworm Room » How Obama can square his conscience with the fact that children will continue to die in Syria()

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    5, You request for a Devil’s Proof can only be obtained from the devil. I am no devil, so cannot comply.
    Things that exist can be proven. Things that don’t exist or have never existed, cannot present proof for its non existence.
    The logical counter to this resides in one specific method.
    So where is your proof that an election has defeated, not temporarily stalled, evil? Does such proof exist?

  • Ron19

    Ymarsakar #9:
    I didn’t make any claims in #5.
    All I did was ask you to substantiate (prove) your own claim in #4.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    The very fact that there is no proof is why my claim is true. Do you not understand the logick. I don’t think it was that complicated.
    A claim of a negative is true ONLY if there is no proof otherwise. After all, the claim that all crows are not black, easily stands as true so long as no proof exists anywhere that a single crow can be considered black.
    Your claim, Ron, in 5 is that somebody needs proof to claim a negative or that a negative can be proven by positive evidence. By logick, don’t you know that’s impossible, in many ways.

  • Ron19

    Ymarsakar #11:
    I can prove, by logic, that I wasn’t alive in London, England in 1492.
    Your claim came from somewhere.  Please let us know whence you write.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    That one isn’t necessary. All you have to prove is that evil has once been defeated by elections.
    My claim comes from the fact that nobody has such proof that evil has ever been defeated by elections. Thus the opposite is true.
    As for non existence, a person can no more prove, with anything, their non existence at any point in space or time than they could prove God’s non existence. A person can only prove their own existence, since they exist. But if they do not, then something that does not exist certainly cannot prove anything.
    As for where the statement comes from, it comes from my mind and its associated memories, functions, and connections. Like where all the rest came from, really.
    I get the feeling that you don’t actually believe proof only exists for positive claims. If so, do you agree with atheists that they have proven the non existence of God then?

  • Ron19

    Ymarsakar 13:
     I get the feeling that you don’t actually believe proof only exists for positive claims.
    You’re right on that.  I used to work in an industry that often proved negatives, and had processes and techniques for doing so.
    My claim comes from the fact that nobody has such proof that evil has ever been defeated by elections. 
    OK, then, back up your claim on this one.  Or,
    A person can only prove their own existence, since they exist.
    Since I can’t prove you exist, I guess I’m talking to myself when I comment at a blog.
    Or, you’ve just shown that all your doing is talking to yourself, but haven’t been able to resolve this discussion to the satisfaction of the people that you are making up “from your mind.”