Syria's Insurrection Is Not America's War

[John81]

Syria's Insurrection Is Not America's War
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Tuesday - June 5, 2012

In pushing for U.S. military intervention in Syria -- arming the insurgents and using U.S. air power to "create safe zones" for anti-regime forces "inside Syria's borders" -- The Washington Post invokes "vital U.S. interests" that are somehow imperiled there.

Exactly what these vital interests are is left unexplained.

For 40 years, we have lived with a Damascus regime led by either Bashar Assad or his father, Hafez Assad. Were our "vital interests" in peril all four decades?

In 1991, George H.W. Bush recruited the elder Assad into his Desert Storm coalition that liberated Kuwait. Damascus sent 4,000 troops. In gratitude, we hosted a Madrid Conference to advance a land-for-peace deal between Assad and Israel.

It failed, but it could have meant a return of the Golan Heights to Assad and Syria's return to the eastern bank of the Sea of Galilee.

We could live with that but cannot live with Bashar?

Comes the reply: The reason is the Houla massacre, where more than 100 Syrians were slaughtered, mostly women and children, the most horrid atrocity in a 15-month war that has taken 10,000 lives.

We Americans cannot stand idly by and let this happen.

That massacre was indeed appalling, and apparently the work of rogue militias aligned with the regime. But in 1982, Bashar's father rolled his artillery up to the gates of Hama and, to crush an insurrection by the Muslim Brotherhood, fired at will into the city until 20,000 were dead.

What did America do? Nothing.

In Black September, 1970, Jordan's King Hussein used artillery on a Palestinian camp, killing thousands and sending thousands fleeing into Lebanon. During Lebanon's civil war from 1975 to 1990, more than 100,000 perished. In the 1980s, Iraq launched a war on Iran that cost close to a million dead.

We observed, content that our enemies were killing one another.

In 1992, Islamists in Algeria won the first round of voting and were poised to win the second. Democracy was about to produce a result undesired by the Western democracies. So Washington and Paris gave Algiers a green light to prevent the Islamists from coming to power. That Algerian civil war cost scores of thousands dead.

If Arab and Muslim peoples believe Americans are hypocrites who cynically consult their strategic interests before bemoaning Arab and Muslim victims of terror and war, do they not have a point?

As for the Post's idea of using U.S. air power to set up "safe zones" on Syrian soil, those are acts of war. What do we do if the Syrian army answers with artillery strikes on those safe zones or overruns one, inflicting a stinging defeat on the United States?

Would we accept the humiliation -- or escalate? What if Syrian air defenses start bringing down U.S. planes? What would we do if Syria's Hezbollah allies start taking Americans hostage in Lebanon?

Ronald Reagan sent the Marines into Lebanon in 1983. His intervention in that civil war resulted in our embassy being blown up and 241 Marines massacred in the bombing of the Beirut barracks. Reagan regarded it as the worst mistake of his presidency. Are we going to repeat it because Bashar has failed to live up to our expectations?

Consider the forces lining up on each side in what looks like a Syrian civil war and dress rehearsal for a regional sectarian war.

Against Assad's regime are the United States, the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, the Turks and Saudis, and Sunni states of the Persian Gulf.

On Assad's side are his 300,000-strong army, the Alawite Shia in Syria, Druze, Christians, and Kurds, all of whom fear a victory of the Brotherhood, and Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah.

The question for our bellicose interventionists is this:

How much treasure should be expended, how much American blood shed so the Muslim Brotherhood can depose the Assad dynasty, take power, and establish an Islamist state in Syria?

"Tell me how this thing ends," said Gen. David Petraeus at the onset of our misbegotten Iraq War. If we begin providing weapons to those seeking the overthrow of Assad, as the Post urges, it will be a fateful step for this republic.

We will be morally responsible for the inevitable rise in dead and wounded from the war we will have fueled. We will have committed our prestige to Assad's downfall. As long as he survives, it will be seen as a U.S. defeat and humiliation.

And once the U.S. casualties come, the cry of the war party will come -- for victory over Assad, Hezbollah, Iran, Russia! We will be on our way into another bloody debacle in a region where there is no vital U.S. interest but perhaps oil, which these folks have to sell to survive.

Before the religious and ethnic conflicts of Europe were sorted out, it took centuries of bloodletting, and our fathers instructed us to stay out of these quarrels that were none of our business.

Syria in 2012 is even less our business.


SOURCE: http://buchanan.org/blog/syrias-insurrection-is-not-americas-war-5090

[JerryNumbers]

Have we become a nations of warriors, constantly looking for a new war, with the strike 1st doctrine?

I've always heard war helps create wealthy people in this country.

[John81]

I heard on the news today there are more calls for America, Europe and others to intervene in Syria.

When America was engaged in "civil war" the Lincoln Administration went to great lengths to tell other nations the conflict was an internal matter that no one should interfere in. During the internal mess in the 1960s and 1970s America condemned the Soviet Union for their covert operations to train and foment unrest (and worse).

What happens within the borders of Syria should be resolved among themselves. The American track record of interference in other nations internal matters is dismal at best. America installed the Shah in Iran which led to what we have in Iran today. There was some postings online earlier today of before and after pictures and stats regarding Iraq before the American invasion and Iraq today and it points to another failure. America turned her back on the president of Egypt, with Obama eventually speaking against him in public, now we have a very unstable Egypt with radical Islamists gaining more power and control. America interfered in Libya and the radical Islamists are grabbing for power there too.

American leaders want to play God, thinking they can control the world and mold the world into their image, but that can't and won't happen.

A return to sane foreign policy, based upon the model which worked so well during America's earlier years, of not entangling ourselves in the wars and internal politics of other nations is needed.

[JerryNumbers]

Our president, our congressmen, they believe they're elected to president, & congressmen, of the whole world, not just the United States, & the more years that goes by, the more they try to control the whole world, & the more hate that's formed against us.

Sad thing is, they can't even run this country, let on the whole world, don't believe me, just take a look at the debt they've got us into.

[irishman]

That type of thinking is ok if you are not Syrian.

[John81]

That type of thinking is ok if you are not Syrian.

If I were a Syrian I would not be looking for American intervention in my country. I certainly wouldn't want the American military bombing my country, shooting up my people, occupying my nation.

Were a similar situation to break out in America, I wouldn not want the Chinese, Russians, NATO or UN getting involved here.

[irishman]

If I were a Syrian I would not be looking for American intervention in my country. I certainly wouldn't want the American military bombing my country, shooting up my people, occupying my nation.

Were a similar situation to break out in America, I wouldn not want the Chinese, Russians, NATO or UN getting involved here.

One regime of oppression may be better, or more humane than the other; it may be that the Syrians would think so too. We are not Chinese or Russians who are ungodly and have no scruples at all. I would not want their intervention either, but they are not for Democracy they are only concerned about power and themselves. Edited June 9, 2012 by irishman

[JerryNumbers]

Marty, Our politicians can't even run our country, they've just about broke it, got us very deep in debt, them getting us even deeper in debt. And the route they're going, in a few years there will not be United States to help no one.

1st, they better get this country in shape, them help others.

[John81]

One regime of oppression may be better, or more humane than the other; it may be that the Syrians would think so too. We are not Chinese or Russians who are ungodly and have no scruples at all. I would not want their intervention either, but they are not for Democracy they are only concerned about power and themselves.

One look at Iraq and it's clear what destruction and chaos America can bring to a nation they "help". Not only is Iraq a mess, a much more dangerous place now than before, especially for Christians who have fled the country in great numbers, but the region is less stable.

Beyond that, no country has the right to interfere in the internal matters of another country. That's called invasion!

It should also be considered that what America puts forth as "democracy" (a form of government the American Founders fully rejected) is not what most Americans would even think of as democracy. The stipulations in the "democracies" of Iraq and Afghanistan, which America helped to establish, give the Muslim religion and Muslim leaders preference and allows for Muslim law to be enforced and to overrule secular law.

England is considered a democracy today, as is Canada, but I wouldn't want either country sending troops into America if we were having internal conflict.

There is no valid reason for America to interfere in the internal affairs of Syria.

[irishman]

What has happened to the American dream? The "let freedom ring" anthem has disappeared, and people are looking at the immediate instead of the long range. Granted, the politicians have ruined our country, but is God greater than a politician? We need to constantly pray for America.

As for foreign intervention, it comes with a price, as most worthwhile things do. Of course there is turmoil now, but when the battle is over, and the smoke clears, freedom is worth the struggle. It may be none of our business what goes on in other countries, but it will affect us someday. The Iraqi's are seeking nuclear power, can they be trusted not to try to destroy America? In the 60's we had a similar threat with communist Russia and red China, should we have ignored it, and later been overrun by a multitude of insurgents? I think we are glad that we intervened when we did, it did have a favorable effect.

I agree that the politicians have ruined our country, but it was because of detente, and not war. We could have, and should have won in Vietnam, but because of the shout of the people against war, they stopped the bombing, and eventually lost the war. That anti-war theme for the sake of "minding our own business" is what is ruining our country; when we do not stand against ungodliness and evil (as a whole) then it will grow and prevail. I do not say that America (and Britain) is a great godly country, but they are closer to it than most, at least they have been up till now. If it is not up to us to stop the terrorists and the Muslim attitude that sparks it, who will? Many of you sound as if no one should, but let them be.

Now, I realize that only the Lord will change hearts and lives, but we can change, or at least affect society, and give oppressed people a chance at freedom. Often, in the transition, the fight for freedom will resemble invasion and oppression, but to get to the core of the matter that is necessary--it has always been that way in war. It breaks my heart to hear others undermine America, it looks as if the hippy movement of the 60's had a greater influence than was expected. when you sympathize with the enemy, it won't be long before you embrace their policies.

[JerryNumbers]

We could have easily won the Vietnam War, to many politics involved. And these same politics is killing our nation. Its all about what is best for the party, its about power, its about who makes the money, not what's best for this nation.

In Vietnam, if we had done early one what we did in 1972, & stayed at it, North Vietnam would have been on the knees surrendering. But due to politics, that was not done, & politics sacrifice many soldiers unnecessary.

The main thing wrong with our country is sins runs wild in Washington, & corruption is deeply in-bedded in the politics of our day. Of course this has been taking place ever since this nation was formed.

Yes, if we had good honest people running our government, as it was originally set up, our country could be in very good condition, & we could truly help other countries.

Lu 12:15 And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.

Many there be that failed to 'take heed bewaring of covetousness,' as the savior called us to do.

[JerryNumbers]

What has happened to the American dream? The "let freedom ring" anthem has disappeared, and people are looking at the immediate instead of the long range. Granted, the politicians have ruined our country, but is God greater than a politician? We need to constantly pray for America.

As for foreign intervention, it comes with a price, as most worthwhile things do. Of course there is turmoil now, but when the battle is over, and the smoke clears, freedom is worth the struggle. It may be none of our business what goes on in other countries, but it will affect us someday. The Iraqi's are seeking nuclear power, can they be trusted not to try to destroy America? In the 60's we had a similar threat with communist Russia and red China, should we have ignored it, and later been overrun by a multitude of insurgents? I think we are glad that we intervened when we did, it did have a favorable effect.

I agree that the politicians have ruined our country, but it was because of detente, and not war. We could have, and should have won in Vietnam, but because of the shout of the people against war, they stopped the bombing, and eventually lost the war. That anti-war theme for the sake of "minding our own business" is what is ruining our country; when we do not stand against ungodliness and evil (as a whole) then it will grow and prevail. I do not say that America (and Britain) is a great godly country, but they are closer to it than most, at least they have been up till now. If it is not up to us to stop the terrorists and the Muslim attitude that sparks it, who will? Many of you sound as if no one should, but let them be.

Now, I realize that only the Lord will change hearts and lives, but we can change, or at least affect society, and give oppressed people a chance at freedom. Often, in the transition, the fight for freedom will resemble invasion and oppression, but to get to the core of the matter that is necessary--it has always been that way in war. It breaks my heart to hear others undermine America, it looks as if the hippy movement of the 60's had a greater influence than was expected. when you sympathize with the enemy, it won't be long before you embrace their policies.

Our politicians, the democrat & republican party, doing what's best for the party, with no regard for the nations as a whole, plus those with no scruples,those wilth deep pockets, buying off the politicians favors.

I caught part of two peoples conversations just the other day, they were speaking about a US congressman, how that when he took office he had hardly a thing, did not even own a home & now he is rich & has two huge homes, running with the big dogs. Is that the American dream?

[John81]

Read the Constitution, there is no authorization or mandate in the Constitution to involve America in the internal affairs of other nations. In fact, the Founders, as well as generations afterwards, clearly were against such. The only "American dream" for other nations, with regards to freedom or other matters, was for America to serve as a beacon of light that other nations could choose to copy if they wished.

If America is determined to be the worlds policeman, ready to force Americanism on any nation that has leaders doing things wrong (by the current American leaderships definition), then America must invade dozens of nations around the world or appear to be the phoney hypocrite which much of the world views America to be.

So, in order to be just, if America intervenes in Syria, America better also intervene in Tibet as well as China itself, along with a dozen African nations, several in South and Central America, and some other nations.

Or, America could follow the sane law and principles set forth in the Constittuion and by the Founders.

[Invicta]

We could have easily won the Vietnam War, to many politics involved. And these same politics is killing our nation. Its all about what is best for the party, its about power, its about who makes the money, not what's best for this nation.

In Vietnam, if we had done early one what we did in 1972, & stayed at it, North Vietnam would have been on the knees surrendering. But due to politics, that was not done, & politics sacrifice many soldiers unnecessary.

The main thing wrong with our country is sins runs wild in Washington, & corruption is deeply in-bedded in the politics of our day. Of course this has been taking place ever since this nation was formed.

Yes, if we had good honest people running our government, as it was originally set up, our country could be in very good condition, & we could truly help other countries.

Lu 12:15 And he said unto them, Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth.

Many there be that failed to 'take heed bewaring of covetousness,' as the savior called us to do.

In Vietnam you were supporting a corrupt Roman Catholic dictatorship as you have in South American countries, Remember Hitler's 3rd Reich was a catholic State, as was his puppet Croatian state, Mussolini's Italy and Franco's murderous Spain, and many others.

[John81]

In Vietnam you were supporting a corrupt Roman Catholic dictatorship as you have in South American countries, Remember Hitler's 3rd Reich was a catholic State, as was his puppet Croatian state, Mussolini's Italy and Franco's murderous Spain, and many others.

From the time of World War Two, when America supported the ungodly, Christian persecuting Soviet Union, onward, America has supported many wicked leaders when she deemed it to somehow be in her best interests. America only speaks out against or uses force against wicked leaders when those wicked leaders won't cooperate with her.

America should have never involved herself in Vietnam, but like Jerry said, if she did choose to engage, America should have went all out to win and win quickly. Instead, America went into the war with great arrogance and ignorance. Once America realized Vietnam was going to be a tough war, she settled in and played with it rather than going all out to win or cutting her loses early and getting out.

Now American troops have been fighting and occupying in the Middle East for over a decade and the warhawks are still not conent. They press for continued war, new wars, more war.