Col. Bob Pappas, USMC (ret)
September 5, 2013
"For the first time in my life I am proud of my country," so said Michelle Obama during the 2008 Presidential Campaign. Now, however, with no compelling interest, her Nobel Prize graced husband is lurching from one incoherent foreign policy to another like a steroid enhanced drunk bouncing off alley walls. If ever there was an effort to avoid critically important national issues, President Obama has found a temporary (at the least) distraction in the Syrian debacle. One wonders if Michelle is still "proud" as her feckless husband contemplates the "punishment" of Syria, although her later, "All this for a damn flag," tracks with a basically unchanged attitude.
What are the "compelling US National Security interests" in Syria? That Syrian President Assad used poison gas on his own people and if unchecked would use it on the US...or Israel? Is there certifiable evidence that the Syrian government used the gas, no matter that one may loathe it, while an equal number strongly claim that Assad would never do that? What of rebel claims that they accidentally released the gas?
So, just what is behind this present rush to punish, or is it pin prick, the Assad government? With his poll numbers plummeting and axiomatic "never let a good crisis pass" mode of politics, this is a made-to-order opportunity for Obama to distract the nation from more critical issues than Syria. That there are voices on the so called, "Right" who are distracted illustrates the level of success the "good crisis" tactic has in the hands of a propaganda expert and lapdog, or is it complicit, information media?
So, what is the compelling US National Security Interest?
The argument, simply stated, is that the world cannot allow a madman to possess, much less use weapons of mass destruction. And, since the US is the only nation (which is increasingly debatable) in the world capable of confronting the threat, it has a duty to take action. The immediate and foremost problem is to factually determine just who used the poison gas, and so far that has not happened with certitude. Then, complicating matters is the open secret that Iran is fully involved as principle supporter of the Assad regime. That fact is complicated further by both China and Russia being supporters of Iran, with Iran all the while inching closer to functional nuclear weapons.
In a video that shows Assad's main opposition leader excising then eating the raw warm heart of one of Assad's soldiers, one wonders, "Should the US side with an uncivilized barbarian, a civilized barbarian, or stay the hell out?" When Vladimir Putin makes a logical, factually based argument against US intervention, it is a compelling illustration of just how demented the Obama Administration is; while in the meantime, the Congress, Republicans included, is about to "drink the Kool-Aid."
Mr. Obama repeatedly asserted during his 2008 campaign that he would fundamentally change not only the US but the world. For those who wondered what he meant, this present debacle is an example in full bloom. But then, there is a French axiom that states, "the more things change, the more they remain the same." Didn't the US go to war in Iraq over weapons of mass destruction, a war that this President loudly, roundly and repeatedly condemned?
The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...
The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a tax deductible donation today.