So…I have a question:
Has anyone else noticed that Kerry and Obama (and thus the entire liberal media establishment) are using exactly the same reasons to get involved in exactly the same kind of “quagmire” that engulfed George W. Bush’s presidency? You know? Operation Iraqi Freedom? That thing every liberal decided they were against after they decided they were for it in 2002?
Kerry’s address on the subject was filled with the following talking points (which have also been stated multiple times by liberal columnists and reporters in various national main stream media outlets):
- The US has a moral obligation to stop the use of weapons of mass destruction and the cruel oppression of liberty-seeking peoples
- A regime that would use such chemical weapons is illegitimate and not a sovereign nation with the right to its own defense.
- A nation that would use WMDs on its own people is a vital security threat to the west.
- The U.S. does not need international support by a unified coalition – we have the right to choose how to use our own military and the resources to make this choice.
- This will be a limited engagement and every effort to affect change in Syria will begin with judicious and selective use of force to minimize collateral damage.
Sound familiar to you?
The dogs of war are howling yet again in the Middle East – partially as a result of Obama’s continued incompetence and incoherence regarding the use of his and NATO’s military assets to enforce international law and back the coalitions that represent a real hope for peace. Time and time again, like a battered spouse, Obama has chosen to back the Muslim Brotherhood (our abuser) on the grounds that this organization best represents the people of the region and that their self-government will leave them more satisfied and less likely to cause problems for the west. Time and time again, the Muslim Brotherhood – militarily backed by Al Qaeda (that pesky group of terrorists that…um…blew up the World Trade Center…twice!, the USS Cole, the Pentagon, countless embassies in Africa and the Middle East…those guys!) has, surprise surprise, chosen, when handed power, to threaten its neighbors, start internal conflicts, rule with an iron fist. In Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Tunisia…and now Syria…pro-liberty coalitions have come to the President and begged for support, and he’s ignored their pleas. At every turn, Obama has chosen wrongly. He toppled the (admittedly corrupt) Gaddafi regime in Libya, and our reward for taking that action was the death of four US officials including our ambassador to Benghazi (likely related to a plot by the US to run guns to the Muslim Brotherhood before we realized that they were actually allied with Al Qaeda). He ignored pro-freedom coalitions in Lebanon and Egypt and favored the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood during the so-called “Arab Spring.” Civil war-torn Lebanon remains in flames and Egypt – once a reliable and stable westernized ally in the region – is now falling into utter chaos.
The wages of Obama’s conciliatory and pro-Islamist Middle East policy are now being paid in Iraq and Afghanistan (those places Bush attacked about which the media has completely forgotten), where factional fighting continues. And we’re about to pay the same high price in Syria, where chemical weapons were used by one brutal, totalitarian faction to slaughter the members of another brutal, totalitarian faction. Bashar al Assad is hardly a leader worth supporting in these trying times, but the alternatives are anarchy (the only thing worse than a totalitarian state) or rule by Al Qaeda (other than that!). And yet, we are faced with a painful choice – do we do as George W Bush did and go to war to prevent the proliferation and usage of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons on civilians, not to mention rescue our flagging credibility abroad, and in so doing, hand the region over to chaos? Do we invest ourselves and our capital and human assets in a long ground war where no US interests were at stake (unlike in OIF, where our interest in the energy sector was theoretically it risk)?
Whatever the decision, this mess could have been avoided with better statesmanship and better use of military force in prior conflicts, but that isn’t even the point of this article. The point, as stated at the top of this piece, is that the very same arguments are now being made to go to war in Syria as were made prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom! The arguments that the SAME PEOPLE now running our military blithely dismissed as invalid or disingenuous when uttered by the previous administration are now being made by THOSE VERY PEOPLE.
The hypocrisy astounds.