By ROBERT L CAPEHERT
JUST when opposition to Pres. Obama’s desire to strike Syrian regime installations with a “proportional” military response in reaction to alleged chemical weapons use seemed to be gaining steam, the rug was pulled out from the opposition’s feet.
In the worst editorial written since another terrible editorial on March 20, 2003 – prompting Bush administration officials to target Syria once Iraq had been won easily – National Review has now buckled again, supporting President Obama’s pointless use of United States military assets here and now.
To be fair, a cadre of dedicated National Review reporters and writers have opposed Wednesday’s unfortunate slip and fall into absurdity – but alas, the editorial was still written; conservatives still find themselves unwisely supporting America-as-global-cop and impotent use-of-force tactics in worldly affairs decoupled from American vital interests.
Adding insult to injury, Republican leadership in the House of Representatives, John Boehner and Eric Cantor, today, indicated they shall support Pres. Obama’s desire to use military force on Syrian regime targets.
And it would seem Pres. Obama seeks such approval only because he shot his mouth off six months ago, opining on the whole “red line” inanity.
Completely missed in this shoveling of horseshit by the Obama administration is whom exactly America would be helping in such a military scenario – all evidence pointing to an American attack upon the Assad regime as empowering those who murdered 3,000 Americans on 9/11 a little more than 10 years ago this month.
The American people are being sold a bill of goods.
It is not unlike the domino theory, echoed in favor of using American military forces in Southeast Asia, almost 50 years ago, which of course gave and took the United States into the caldron of the Vietnam War – forever crippling American war fighting prowess and respectability in the world.
Now it is the threat of chemical biological weapons, unused for over 25 years. But the use of such inhumane weapons 25 years ago did not foment a new age of chemical weapons warfare.
Pres. Barack Obama’s ego is on the line. The raptor-armed President’s foreign policy has been a disaster; his words meaningless – his words have been said without much wisdom behind them – and now the march to attack another Middle Eastern country in less than 10 years marches forward.
Meanwhile, across the conservative seraglio, The Weekly Standard’s William Kristol – who never met a war he did not like – has been championing United States military action against Syria for years. And now, the quiet-voiced Wilsonian internationalist presumes Republican leadership in Congress will authorize the President to use force.
Kristol has been a madman for military invention since before the Iraq War in 2003, and his track record sucks, quite frankly.
The enormity of Kristol’s warmongering erection is startling, unsurpassed and without the norm of historical context in the Middle East or beyond. Kristol’s internationalist arousal lacks interaction with conservative thinking on matters of foreign policy far and wide – and should, therefore, be abandoned as senseless and dangerous.
There are no wins in Kristol’s column – only loses. Yet, it seems, conservatives are supposed to fall in line to support such absurdity.
And these same conservatives continue to (or have for two presidential elections) rise to Republican global interventionists – that is GOP Presidential nominees McCain and Romney, being roundly defeated by supposedly anti-war progressives like Pres. Barack Obama.
Let us admit Pres. Barack Obama being anti-war is a misnomer. He used an anti-war tact in 2008 to get elected. Republicans were a godsend to candidate Obama’s political posture because they screwed up Afghanistan and Iraq so badly.
Pres. Obama has avoided the quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan, whilst sending Osama Bin Laden into eternity, thus believing he has the political capital to wage war more intelligently.
It could be.
But the President’s approval ratings overall, and the lack of approval for a military strike against Syria, seem to tell a different story.
It should be admitted United States foreign policy over two administrations has been dependent upon utopian ideas of nations and peoples, and continues to be unwise and severely counter-productive to American vital interests at home and abroad.