Post by Steve Schippert
So President Obama finally admits there is no short-term threat to US National Security posed by Syria. That tidbit isn’t news to the initiated, but his admission surely is. Finally. So now, Obama’s the long term National Security strategist?
OK, so what does our long-term National Security situation look like if the president and his supporters? (Including Boehner, Cantor and, yes, still McCain.)
Well, the tide appears to be turning again in Syria. Towards the “rebels,” which of course includes al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda types and those who attacked us in Benghazi.
And so, if “humanity” is what we are to be serving, and the aim is to remove Assad and his regime for using chemical weapons, what comes next? Who controls Syria and, ahem, its chemical and biological weapons stocks? That’s right. Among others in the chaos, it would include “ al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda types and those who attacked us in Benghazi.” They would never use those weapons on us or our allies, right?
That’s some brilliant long-term security strategizing, don’t you think?
Friends recently asked me to knock off the mothballs and weigh in. I offered them this, in part.
In short, what I am saying is that America – as the leader of the Free World – has no dog in this fight. Whichever side wins, individual Liberty loses. We Americans with our own revolutionary history wrongly presume that revolutions intrinsically and naturally have equal parts good guys and bad guys, liberty-seekers and oppressors. Sure, the opposition in Syria seeks to liberate itself from the dictatorship of Bashar Assad, essentially Iran’s toad boy. But once it ‘liberates’ itself from Bashar Assad, what does it embrace? I suggest to you that the victor emerges equal parts chaos and Caliphate and nowhere to be found is the individual liberty we Americans ignorantly presume is the aim.
So what’s my take on Syria, my friends ask? It’s Red on Red, and bad things will happen, horrific things will happen. And we’re neither in charge nor in a position to physically assert ourselves into this situation intelligently with any clear aim or mission. Who do we strike? Do we strike the bad guys (Assad) for using chemical weapons on his own population in the midst of revolution? Or do we strike the bad guys (terrorist groups in the opposition) because they are, well, terrorists seeking a state apparatus?
Not all that complicated. Unless you need it to be. Long-term or short-term.