By DAVID J BEILSTEIN
Bob Capehert directed his anger at Republican leadership and the Obama administration’s plans to attack Bashar el-Assad’s Syrian regime. I must concur with Bob’s assessments – as I am myself unsure of what the Obama administration intends to accomplish short and long term, with such an attack.
It remains decidedly unclear whether a limited United States military strike will impede Assad’s operational abilities – nor is it certain such an attack will not prod a more serious regional war. Nothing in life or war is certain – but the benefits of any military operation should outweigh the risk.
Even if one disagrees with a more restrained American military presence, it strikes the mind as the worst kind of tactics to purposely do an action which will have little to no effect – and could possibly backfire into a worse situation.
Even more disconcerting, Republican leadership now seem to siding with the Obama White House about the importance of attacking Syria, an attack which few deny will empower Syrian factions whose alliances and ambitions in the region can hardly be said to be of vital American interest.
Now Obama officials seek a policy that will empower America’s enemies – meaning al-Qaeda and numerous other Islamic fascist militants and their proxy forces.
And I am equally disturbed at National Review’s editorial on Wednesday of last week that supported Pres. Barack Obama intentions to strike Syria. At the same time, it was good to see wiser heads at National Review distancing themselves from such a distasteful editorial one imagines was written in haste – one so enamored with the morass of incompetence of American foreign policy over the last decade.
Here, National Review’s editorial brain trust appears increasingly confused as to the proper object of American use of military force and it’s prudent application – to secure and protect American vital interests.
No such reality exists in the Syrian civil war conflict.
And put simply, America’s foremost conservative voice continues not to learn the lessons the Bush era announced – that good intentions are not wise policy, especially when it comes to war and peace.
Meanwhile, Rep. John Boehner continues to be the worst stripe of Republican jackass, resoundingly ineffective at mounting a posture in opposition to Pres. Obama’s domestic and foreign agenda.
And one wonders how Republicans and voters who lean toward the party can still be shocked at how the Grand Old Party continues to lose national elections (especially at the presidential level), while remaining a party without a classical liberal voice able to dismantle the left’s myriad of incoherence on a plethora of issues, small and large.
War fever ensnares Capital Hill. From issues concerning a worsening economy to American security abroad, it is the people who continue to go unheard.