Bomb Syria – now there’s an idea.
(To regain my composure, I need to interject here an item from the New York Times, Sept. 1, before continuing: Abu Bassam, Homs, Syria, said: “Man, I wish Bush was the president. He would have reacted right away. He may have invaded Cypress or Jordan by mistake, but you know he would have done something at least.”)
Delivering missile attacks against Syria will bring no remedy. What it will bring includes two things: more terror to an already terrorized populace, and the provoking of all kinds of retribution from an emboldened Syrian government, which will likely strike out in revenge at Israel and inflict more pain on its own people because it doesn’t like being punished with raining American missiles.
Going to the American Congress for a reasoned debate about the issue is a good idea, (although that’s pretty much like going to Disneyland expecting to see an Ingmar Bergman film). Ultimately, what’s the point? If Congress votes against it, which seems likely, President Barack Obama is going to do it anyway, as he has said he has already made his decision and has the authority to carry it out.
He claims this would be an isolated attack and will not involve “boots on the ground.” Of course, it will! Vietnam proved that. Iraq and Afghanistan proved that. Bombing a foreign country is an act of war!
American military intervention in foreign civil wars never works, it always brings more war, and we have to stop doing this!
A great man can make a bad decision. But a great man must acknowledge that mistake and make amends. If he straightforwardly informs the American people that, after reviewing the facts, and considering the lack of international support, reverses his decision as ill-advised, we will gratefully applaud and respect him for it.
Americans love to forgive. But if he attacks Syria, he will not only be escalating the danger in that region, but he will lose support and authority to accomplish the changes needed at home.