War drums as U.S. moves toward ill-conceived military action in Syria

If you watched any of the Sunday morning news shows yesterday, you know that one thing is clear. Now that the Obama administration has given preliminary confirmation of chemical weapons being used by Assad, U.S. politicians from both sides of the aisle are beating the Syrian war drums. On Fox News Sunday, Republican Sen. Bob Corker appeared with Democrat Rep. Eliot Engel. The pair didn't discuss whether the U.S. needed to dirty its hands with the Syrian civil war. They talked about how much we needed to be involved, how quickly, and the extent to which Congress should be involved.

---

"I think we will respond in a surgical way," Corker said, "and I hope the president as soon as we get back to Washington will ask for authorization from Congress to do something in a very surgical and proportional way, something that gets their attention that causes them to understand we’re not going to put up with this kind of activity.” Engel agreed, saying “I certainly would do cruise missile strikes. I think you can do that without boots on the ground. I just think that we have to move, and we have to move quickly. I do agree with Senator Corker that I think Congress needs to be involved, but perhaps not initially.” According to the London Telegraph, a joint U.S./British fleet could launch a first strike in as little as a few days. They claim that "Royal Navy vessels are being readied to take part in a possible series of cruise missile strikes, alongside the United States, as military commanders finalize a list of potential targets."

---

---

So, if you're reading the tea leaves, it seems pretty clear that the decision to do "something" has already been made. It's only a matter of time before we find out what exactly that is. The problem we have is that no one, anywhere, has articulated any kind of goal. Are we ousting Assad? Are we aiding the Al Qaeda-backed rebels? What's the long term, post-conflict picture supposed to look like? If, as Corker suggests, we're doing this to "get their attention" and send some kind of message, we should just stand down right now. A guy like Assad, who's willing to gas his own people, probably doesn't care too much about what we think, unless we're ready to invade and take him out. Right now it doesn't look like anyone has the stomach for "boots on the ground" but, as Amr Moussa, former Secretary General of the Arab League, said Sunday “They always start like that, limited strike, then it widens and grows and grows and then all the region will be involved.” The cost in terms of U.S. blood and treasure would be enourmous, and for our efforts we would receive ...what, exactly?

Disastrous effects of President Obama's Mid-East foreign policy

Yes, there are atrocities happening in Syria. We're not a cold nation. No one wants to stand idly by while Assad unleashes chemical weapons. However, we have no true ally in this fight. Assad has promised us another Viet Nam, and the rebels are widely backed by a terror organization that has sworn the destruction of the United States. Whoever wins, the U.S. loses. If we intervene, we'll be forced to own whatever chaos we create. So far, nobody has indicated that there's any tangible upside to U.S. involvement, no one seems to know what the aftermath will look like, and there doesn't appear to be any specific plan. Despite all of that, it looks like we've decided to jump in feet - and cruise missiles - first. Given the so-far disastrous effects of President Obama's Mid-East foreign policy, we have no business embarking on another nebulous, ill-defined, ally-free military engagement. …But buckle up. It looks like that’s exactly what we’re going to do.

---