Syria: To Bomb or Not to Bomb

There are several things I have noticed about this entire debate on military strike(s) on Syria's President Assad  for alleged gas attacks on his own people.  The first thing I noticed is the lack of outrage by the anti-war Left such as Code Pink and, of course, the Hollywood elitists such as Alec Baldwin, Roseanne Barr and others of that ilk.  They do not seemingly realize how hypocritical they are by not condemning a war with Syria (and that is definitely on the Obama agenda list).  Nothing the Left does surprises me any longer.  They have largely remained silent with all the NSA spying domestically on John Q. Public.  They have stood on the sidelines on Benghazi, Fast&Furious, snooping into AP employees phone records to name just three.
 So, from this point onward, we have to recognize the Left for the outrageous hypocrites they are now. Another thing I have noticed is the lack of support President Obama has for military strikes against Syria.  The American people are war weary.  Obama has shown no compunction about sending in troops for whatever goal he has in mind.  That brings up my next point; what goal does Obama hope to achieve by launching a few cruise missiles at Syrian government forces?  How much damage does Obama hope to cause to the Syrian government without sending in U.S. troops?  If Obama doesn't get the desired effect of whatever it is he wants, I can assure you he will send in U.S. troops.  The sad thing about it, these U.S. troops will be fired upon by both Syrian government forces and Syrian rebels who are inspired by al qaeda, our sworn enemy. It's a no-win situation for our armed forces.  So, why get involved with so many Americans and so many of our allies against U.S. involvement?   I wish I had the answer to that question.  I don't buy the current theme song from the Obama Administration.  The current mantra being floated by Obama is that if Assad would gas his own people, he would have no reason not to use it on his enemies.  That is, of course, complete nonsense.

First, what enemies around the world would Syria be able to launch against?  France?  England?  The USA?  Unless President Assad has ICBMs capable of delivering such a payload, then this entire argument of using gas against enemies is sheer fallacy.  If he has such missiles, wouldn't it stand to reason he would use nukes instead of gas?  Methinks Obama is building a straw-man argument to strengthen his rationale for a strike against Syria.  He is on very shaky ground right now as he tries to rally support for military intervention in this war.  Secondly, why would Assad do something so foolish?  He is in a virtual stalemate with his own civil war.  He can't afford to try something to ignite another World War.  It would have end game written all over it for Assad if he tries to globalize this conflict.  `The fact of the matter is that we have no business getting involved in a civil war that has no bearing on us.  Did we intervene immediately after Saddam Hussein gassed Kurdish civilians?  No, it was several years after that before we took action.  President Obama has other objectives in mind for military intervention in this Syrian civil war.  It has little, if anything, to do with Syrian civilians being gassed.  The theory is that Obama enjoys the power of being the President of the United States.  From time to time, he likes to exercise that power.  He has backtracked from unilaterally using the War Powers Act to act on his own against President Assad of Syria.  However, Obama has threatened to go it alone without Congressional approval if he doesn't get his way.  This is the usual tact by Obama.  He has usurped the U.S. Constitution several times by exercising executive orders of the presidency.  I fully expect this egomaniac to again bypass Congress and get the USA involved in another war during his presidency.

With all this said, it is not without some hesitation that I feel Syria needs to be bombed for using weapons of mass destruction against their own people.  But,who benefits from such an action?  The Syrian rebels, along with their ally, al qaeda.  It seems we never learn from our mistakes of the past.  Thusly, we are doomed to repeat another mistake by getting involved in a civil war in the Middle East.  Who pays the price for such a mistake?  Our troops and the loved ones they leave behind.  We need to stay out of Syria.  We gain nothing by getting involved.  As Sarah Palin stated, "Let Allah sort it out." This is one of the few times I actually agree with her.