Syria's war, not ours
By Pat Buchanan
Published: Tuesday, April 30, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
“The worst mistake of my presidency,” said Ronald Reagan of his decision to put Marines into the middle of Lebanon's civil war, where 241 died in a suicide bombing of their barracks.
And if Barack Obama plunges into Syria's civil war, it could consume his presidency. Why would he even consider this?
Because he blundered badly. Foolishly, he put his credibility on the line by warning that any Syrian use of chemical weapons would cross a “red line” and be a “game changer” with “enormous consequences.”
Not only was this ultimatum unwise, Obama had no authority to issue it. If Syria does not threaten or attack us, Obama would need congressional authorization before he could constitutionally engage in acts of war against Syria.
Moreover, there is no proof Syrian President Bashar Assad ever ordered the use of chemical weapons.
U.S. intelligence agencies maintain that small amounts of the deadly toxin sarin gas were likely used. But if it did happen, we do not know who ordered it.
Syrians officials deny that they ever used chemicals. And it is well within the capacity of Assad's enemies to use or fake the use of poison gas to suck us into fighting their war.
Even if elements of Assad's army did use sarin, we ought not plunge in. It is not our war. There is no vital U.S. interest in who rules Syria.
U.S. intervention would also make us de facto allies of Assad's principal enemies, the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Nusra Front, Syria's al-Qaida. Do we really wish to expend American blood and treasure to bring about a victory of Islamists and jihadists in Syria?
If Assad's chemical weapons threaten any nation, it is Israel. But Israel knows where they are stored and has an air force superior to our own in the Med. Yet Israel has not attacked Syria's chemical weapons.
And if Israel does not feel sufficiently threatened by Syria's chemical weapons to go after them, why should we, 4,000 miles away?
And if we get into this war, how do we get out?
For the war is metastasizing. Hezbollah is sending in fighters to help the Alawite Shia. Other Lebanese are assisting the Sunni rebels. The war could spread into Iraq, where the latest clashes between Sunni and Shia are pulling the country apart. Young Muslims are coming in from Europe.
Iran and Russia are aiding Damascus. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are aiding the Islamists. The United States, Jordan and Turkey are aiding the secularists. Syria could come apart, and a sectarian and ethnic war of all against all erupt across the region.
Do we really want the U.S. military in the middle of this?
Because his “red line” appears to have been crossed, Obama is being told he must attack Syria to maintain his credibility with Iran and North Korea.
Nonsense. To attack Syria would compound Obama's folly in drawing the red line. Better to have egg on Obama's face than for America to be dragged into another unnecessary war.
Congressional war hawks, led by Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, are cawing for airstrikes and no-fly zones, which would mean dead and captured Americans and many more dead Syrians.
Time for Congress to either authorize Obama to lead us into a new Middle East war or direct him to keep America out of what is Syria's civil war.
Before we slide into another war, let the country be consulted first.
Pat Buchanan is the author of “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Jailed Hribal ‘fine,’ but family ‘terrible’ as answers in stabbing sought
- Five years later, Crosby wants another Cup win
- Starkey: Fleury’s future at stake
- South Fayette parents express dissatisfaction with handling of bullying
- Penguins’ Malkin expects to play in Game 1
- Community turns out for Franklin Regional students’ return to class
- Pirates notebook: Wandy Rodriguez experiencing decline in fastball velocity
- PNC posts 7 percent rise in 1Q profit
- Blue Jackets confident as they wade into postseason
- Men charged in Washington Co. girl’s slaying to stand trial
- Hempfield Area superintendent, business manager quit