While Senators could not be troubled to go to a simple briefing on the NSA warrantless surveillance program and some like South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham shrugged off the importance of privacy, the same Senators are demanding the intervention into yet another war in the Middle East. It does not matter that we have major educational and environmental programs being cut for lack of funding. It does not matter that our invasion in Iraq is an ongoing nightmare. We are being told to intervene in a civil war where Sunnis and Shia are carrying out centuries of hatred with atrocities on both sides. Senators want the U.S. to enforce a no-fly zone which would involve direct attacks on Serbian air forces while President Obama has already pledged to directly support rebel forces with arms.
Graham is frustrated by the delay in intervening into a fourth war: “We need to create a no-fly zone. We cannot take air power out of the equation.” His colleague, Georgia Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss, has proclaimed “A no-fly zone may be the ultimate tactic that needs to be taken.”
Once again, the media is almost uniformly supporting this hawkish support by framing the question as to how far we should militarily intervene as opposed to whether we should intervene at all.
While Graham referred to the area as a “powder keg,” he is desperate for us to join the fighting through a no fly zone as well as military support. In the meantime, Russia has said it will oppose any no fly zone. Russia is of course the only nation with as conflicted a policy as our own. While denouncing Obama’s decision to supply arms to the rebels as destabilizing, Russia is of course sending massive support to the regime.
Once again, I am struck by how the media attention presupposes our intervention in some form rather than consider the possible position of non-intervention. We have a country filled with religious extremism and sectarian violence. Yet, these Senators are virtually panting to get involved in yet another war. Why?
“Yet, these Senators are virtually panting to get involved in yet another war. Why?”
Why? Who profits from war? Private contractors who have the senators in their pockets.
Why? Their undying support ensures their re-election through the coffers of military contractors.
Let’s require all the neocons (pro intervention slugs) to go fight it themselves. Really, to risk life and limb in the atrocity of war BEFORE any of our military personnel are sent. Watch how fast they shut their asinine lip service while hiding in a corner…. Complete moral turpitude.
p.s. the US provided Sarin to the rebels as a plant for outrage that would stir up support to invade Syria. Never believe the MSM on anything. They are shills for the talking point club.
Justice Holmes
………testosterone storms.!!! .. :o)
and the goodly common people just get pissed on…. if not killed.
I am about as far from an isolationist as you can get, but there comes a time to draw the line. We passed over the bright line a long time ago, but it is not too late to dial it back to some semblance of sanity. There are wars we should have fought, but there seem to have been more we shouldn’t.
Wars should never be fought for money, resources or land. Young men and women die in faraway lands, while the old men who sent them to die sit in comfort sipping their cocktails, watching their investment balances grow.
leejcaroll – no, it would not be a reason to intervene. whether 90k people die by bullets/bombs/flame throwers or poison gas makes no difference – it’s horrible either way. the question is whether intervention could stop the killing (nope). even assuming it could, is that worth american blood?
tangentially – where’s the evidence of wmd use? i remember 10 years ago the government assuring us that another country had/used wmd’s.
professor turley said it best, let’s focus on home for a while.
If they in fact used chemical agents against their own people is that a reason to intervene? Just asking since no one has brought that up so far.
Why? Maybe it works well in deflecting the attention away from the NSA’s blunders and congress’ and the presidents complicity in those.
Let’s see It’s Hezbollah and the Syrian government on one side and al qaeda and the rebels on the other. Lets let’em fight till someone wins then go in and kick the crap out of the winner. sound good
“Wars on multiple fronts while neglecting domestic needs has traditionally worked out so well. What could possibly go wrong? It’s not as if that ever caused an empire to collapse or anything. We’ll just hire some more mercenaries.” – Romulus Augustus
🙄
And what Justice Holmes said.
I say its time for Senator Graham to suit up and go. He also should decide that his precious corporations should help pay for these adventures into testosterone storms.
The Nobel Peace Prize winner is so afraid that the men won’t like him that he is going to go into another war with his eyes wide shut! Outrageous.
Generally I’m a ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ kinda’ gal but that rebel that cut the heart out of a government soldier and took a bite, I don’t want to be his friend, under any circumstances, no way. May Dog have mercy on my soul but I agree with Sarah Palin on this one, let Allah sort it out.
There is more to the story………..
The United States and Europe has been contributing to the self-destrcution of Syria for the same reason why we are involved in every middle eastern conflict: Mineral Resources.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria, “Syria’s main exports include crude oil, refined products, raw cotton, clothing, fruits, and grains. The bulk of Syrian imports are raw materials essential for industry, vehicles, agricultural equipment, and heavy machinery. Earnings from oil exports as well as remittances from Syrian workers are the government’s most important sources of foreign exchange.”
Knowing this, the US & EU further weaken Syria’s economy by: “Sanctions have sapped the government’s finance. US and European Union bans on oil imports, which went into effect in 2012, are estimated to cost Syria about $400 million a month.”
In essence, the US sells weapons to Syria, wait to the people of Syria annihilate each other (if they don’t this fast enough, our solution is to provide them-rebels-with weapons. We have to be fair, since we did provide the other side with weapons), and then, we come in and take the resouces.
Another reason to ignore the UN’s resolution?
Also why isn’t the US, EU, & Russia not a part of the Non-Aligned Movement (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement)? Does this movement threaten their colonial, imperialistic/oppressive, exploitative regime?
The idea of getting involved with Syria is insane. The “brains” of our Beltway Establishment’s support of the rebels, if successful, will probably put someone worse in power. Assad is a thug, but some fundamentalist could well replace him. Beyond that, we need to pay attention to the needs of the people of THIS country. Finally, I don’t want even one member of someone’s family to die or be maimed in a debacle in Syria.
US involvement with arms supply and a no-fly zone could easily spiral up and out. Trainers on the ground, followed by Marines to protect the trainers, followed by search & rescue teams for downed pilots-and there will be downed pilots, followed by even more Marines, etc, etc, etc. All very good for business, while keeping the White House busy adjusting to the daily changing situation.
I mean c’mon, the alternative is Afghanistan winds down and we’re at peace! Oh, the horrors!
As to Graham and McCain, they appear to view all geopolitical outcomes as a zero-sum game between America and her adversaries. This requires (1) a dispassionate weighing of the (financial, military, social, geopolitical and moral) costs and benefits of every possible outcome and (2) an awareness of one’s current strategic position. The second consideration alone is enough to caution against our involvement in Syria. As for the first consideration, Israel (not the shyest of countries) has decided that sticking it to Iran is not worth the risk of protracted involvement in a conflict with extremists on both sides. Perhaps there are other considerations at play for the senators – I wonder if the senators have much contact with people reliant on the defense budget / projections of it.
As to the media, have you ever played Risk? It’s fun to have assets and use them around a board-game world of no consequence (violent, moral or otherwise). Especially when you play with people that share your interest in discussing strategy and game theory. Now imagine get to talk about Risk on television.
Turley wrote: “Senators want the U.S. to enforce a no-fly zone which would involve direct attacks on Serbian air forces while President Obama has already pledged to directly support rebel forces with arms.”
Attacks on Serbia were from a different Democrat President in another decade.
Democrats. The prosecutors of every single war in the 20th Century. (“War” meaning the other side actually shot back unlike Grenada, Panama & the 1st Gulf Slaughter).
Damned Serbian Air Force! Always intervening in the civil wars of distant countries! The TSA (an example of a TLA) should put them on a no-fly list!
Lindsay Graham and other Syrian warmongers have a lust for foreigner blood
We do love war. It’s hard for us to go a year or two without one. Righteous indignation expressed so eloquently by defense contractor lobbyists.
Isnt it Syria?