By the time you read this Obama may have gotten his gun off again.
And then the Liberal hypocrisy becomes complete.
That’s not to say that Obama’s a hypocrite; he’s just a demagogue.
Other Liberals are hypocrites. They’ve gone from opposing the attack on Iraq over supposed WMDs because Bush proposed it, to supporting an attack on Syria over supposed WMDs because Obama proposes it.
I guess we’re just lucky that John Kerry was willing and able to report for this duty.
This is what you get when you have a Secretary of State who opposed two wars before he was for the one war he gets to start. I guess now he can claim he was right before he was wrong.
So, let me put this in layman’s terms: attacking Syria is a really dumb idea.
There were many reasons to justify going to war in Iraq. WMDs weren’t one of those reasons. Nor is it a reason for going to war in Syria.
War is no longer the Sport of Kings.
Instead, war very often involves you and you and you.
Rick Atkinson captured it perfectly in his book The Day of Battle:
“We had learned our first lesson,” says a corporal, “mainly that fate, not the Germans or Italians, was our undiscriminating enemy. With the same callousness as Army orders, without fairness or judgement, 'You and you—dead. The rest of you, on the truck.’”
And if the last hundred years has taught us anything it is this: war once begun, very often takes on a life of its own.
Like living beings war decides emotionally, and justifies its actions rationally.
As a person who knows some of those living beings who will have to fight wars, I can tell you that an attack on Syria is neither rational nor emotional.
It’s calculated politically. Obama must get his gun off, or risk being thought of as weak.
That’s not a good enough reason to use force and kill other people. It wasn’t a good enough reason for Obama’s so-called “surge” strategy in Afghanistan, either. If the goal, as then Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta defined it, was “of reversing the Taliban momentum on the battlefield and dramatically increase the size and capability of the Afghan national security forces," then they have failed.
The Taliban is expected to reclaim power shortly after the U.S. leaves.
But of course military success wasn’t the goal, was it?
The goal was rather that Obama could get his own “surge” as a riposte to the successful surge strategy that extricated the United States from Iraq long before Obama was even the Democrat nominee.
(An important interview) Saving the Net from the surveillance state (And Crony Media): Glenn Greenwald speaks up (Q&A) | Nick Sorrentino