It is appropriate that one day before the twelfth anniversary of 9/11 the President of the United States addresses the nation regarding the current state of affairs in the Middle-East. However, instead of another pronouncement about how well the war on terror is going, North Americans were treated to the pleasant notion that they have the moral duty to support the Free-Syrian Army in their civil war against the Assad regime in Syria. Also, known as the saints from Al-Qaeda and other Islamic Extremist groups who are backed by the regime in Iran, who has long desired control over the area in order to further its goal of eventually destroying the state of Israel. The Free Syrian Army that not only constantly kills Christians (others for their religion) indiscriminately, but who even kill Syrian soldiers and eat their enemies hearts freshly ripped from their dying bodies. These facts alone should convince every American that the United States military should not aid the rebels in achieving their goals of toppling the Assad regime. Not to mention that any support for Al-Qaeda is an affront to the memories of those who lost their lives on September 11th, 2001.
Yet, I have not written this piece to rehash all the justification that is plainly evident for why the United States getting involved in Syria is a tragedy waiting to happen; including as we just learned a couple days ago that a Russian investigation that has been submitted to the UN presents strong evidence that it was the Free Syrian Army, not those forces loyal to Assad that used the chemical weapons.
Instead, since Obama in his speech last night asked for our help. I say we help Obama, by giving him a nice does of good old American common sense. Since Obama seems to be having a hard time remembering the events of the Arab Spring. As well as seeing that the goals he stated last night that he is attempting to accomplish in Syria, which all Americans should agree with, are not served but actually undermined by his proposal for a limited military strike on Syria.
President Obama's Stated Goals as of September 10, 2013 9pm
1. On behalf of 98% of the Civilized World, deter Assad & others from ever using chemical weapons again.
In the speech Obama constantly brought up two key ideas, the first being that the civilized world must act to demonstrate to everyone, that 98% of the civilized world is clearly against the use of chemical weapons. So that everyone is deterred from ever using them once more. Yet, there are two clear problems with this objective. The first is quite simple, only France is supportive of the United State's proposal to use force in dealing with Syria, and not out of some sense of horror over the chemical attacks, though I am by no means suggesting they aren't horrified. Instead, as history has shown us, out of a sense of colonial nationalism. Since Syria was once a French colony that was acquired after the events and treaties of World War Two. A motivation that is irreconcilable with the anti-colonial founding principles of the United States, and a fact that demonstrates that Obama is actually not representing the civilized world when he calls for an attack on Syria.
The second major problem with an attack on Syria is that, as Senator Rand Paul has been pointing out for two weeks now, if Assad did use chemical weapons then Assad is already acting irrationally. Since with Russia's support Assad would not have lost to the Islamic Extremists backed by Iran, meaning that he had no reason, especially as a third world dictator, to draw the ire of the United States by using chemical weapons.
[A fact, that up till this point is still not based on anything, with all reports about the attack either waiting to be finished, incomplete, unsure, or as the Russian report filed at the U.N. in July indicates, it was the Free Syrian Army not Assad who were the perpetrators behind the chemical weapons attack back in August. Moreover, as Obama himself indicated when he stated last night that "neither Assad nor his allies have any interest in escalation that would lead to his demise," it is more likely that Assad isn't irrational, and thus that his regime was not responsible for the chemical attacks in the first place. Lastly, Obama's reasoning that since Assad has admitted to having these weapons means that he was responsible, is non-nonsensical. Since this would mean that the United States, which has the best of the best when it comes to all types of weapons of mass destruction, is not only hypocritical if it were to attack Assad, but setting up such a justification that can just as easily be used by other nations to justify an assault on the U.S. homeland is to say in the least, dangerous.]
This irrationality on the part of Assad means that a strike that has the objective of deterring Assad from using chemical weapons in the future, may just as easily lead him to simply retaliate by using them, as deter him. Moreover, given the high degree with which things are likely to escalate if the United States gets involved, this may mean that American GI's and allied forces in Israel may indeed be facing the threat of chemical weapons attacks sooner rather then (most likely, given U.S. capabilities) never.
2. To bring stability to the region, and bring a moderate democratically elected faction to power in Syria.
Despite the President's statements earlier on in the speech about how "I will not put boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open ended action, like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo," and how he has no intention of removing the Assad regime from power for it would mean, just as in Iraq, that the United States would have to take ownership for all that came afterwards. Nevertheless, by deciding to answer the broader question of what happens after Assad is ousted near the end of his speech, this indicates that at the very least the President believes Assad is on shaky ground at the moment. Yet, if this is indeed the case, then any attack, even a limited one, might mean the end of Assad.
A scenario, that if it were to come to pass would not achieve what the President claims is his vision for Syria's future. A future of a stable Syria ruled over by a democratically elected moderate government. Since, as the President stated "Al-Qaeda will only draw strength from a chaotic Syria," indicating that the only organized force is not the moderate democratic loving Syrians, but the terrorist organizations who seek sharia law and death to all infidels within Syria and the destruction of Israel outside of Syria's borders. And since nature abhors a vacuum there will be no time to organize the moderates before the already organized Islamic Extremists take over the country, which is the same thing that occurred in Egypt.
Also, Obama's suggestion that the chaos is somehow enhanced or heightened by the world doing nothing in response to the single chemical attack back in August is nonsensical. Since any strength derived from the alleged attack by Assad has already been gained. Furthermore, more chaos is being created by Obama's threat of force in Syria, as thousands of refugees have begun to flee to Jordan in numbers never seen before in anticipation of the United State's attack; than at anytime after the chemical attack and prior to Obama's announcement that the United States is considering using force in Syria.
Thus, as one can clearly see Obama has not connected the results of his limited strike with the vision and goals he has for Syria's future. Since a limited strike would serve to undermine Obama's own vision, and not aid it in anyway. Moreover, it is clear that Obama has not thought this through, for when he asked for our help he did not ask us to look at the facts and come to a rational decision about what should be our course of action. Instead, he urged us to look at the pictures and videos of the results of the horrible atrocity that was committed in Syria in August of this year when chemical weapons were used, and feel ourselves into support for another major war.
Finally, Obama has not only NOT thought this through, which is why he is now delaying attacking, for he realizes the Russian proposal that the United States stay out of it and in exchange all of Assad's chemical weapons will be turned over to the U.N. is making him look like a fool; but Obama does not know what he is doing. Since by making the statement that the only action that will be taken against Assad is a limited strike, and ruling out any sort of further force. Obama has allowed for the possibility, that if Assad uses chemical weapons in the future after such a limited strike occurs, all U.S. credibility will be lost, especially amongst our third world dictator enemies. Since it will indicate to them that the United States has grown soft and has no actual teeth, or at the very least the teeth are only for show. Not only that, but it also opens up an even worse possibility. That Assad's regime is toppled as a result of the weakening of his capabilities due to the limited strike by the United States, and Al-Qaeda comes to power and gets its hands on a part of Assad's chemical weapons program that was missed or not fully destroyed by the United States military; and they will be allowed to keep it.
In conclusion, I hope Mr. President that you found this helpful and that you now know what you must do, stay OUT of Syria!!!
Creator & Founder
PS: You Can Watch the Full Speech Here:
President Obama's Address to the Nation on Syria
September 10, 2013