I just wanted to jot down some thoughts on the latest news about our intentions in Syria. It is tough to say if our dear leader has made up his jelly-like mind on whether or not to try to wipe out the hounds of hell, ISIS, in their Syrian hq. He seemed to suggest that his fury knew no bounds and all actions needed would be taken – but then we have Dempsey saying, it’s not a threat to us yet. I read that as a warning to ISIS not to attack the US or else, others read it as saying Obama has changed his mind again. It’s a mystery how Obama thinks, if he does. I keep trying to see ahead with Obama, throwing into my considerations “atheist semi-Moslem left-wing airhead” and I just don’t have a clue. I’m afraid that also describes our dear leader.
I think wiping out these lunatics is a good idea, if we can do it. (I mean ISIS, not Obama and his advisors.) I’ll get to the bad fall-out from doing so in a moment, but for now let me present the picture as it stands. For unknown reasons, the US has decided that it must effect regime change in Syria. To that end, we created the disaster in Benghazi where we were covertly running weapons through third parties to the Syrian opposition. To that end we created the disaster that is ISIS, which was attracted to the battle between Washington and Syria like a shark to bloody waters. ISIS took many of the weapons, have almost totally destroyed the so-called good guys, and spread like a cancer. Today, the only way, says the US, to destroy the evil horde (and they are) is to strike at their heart in occupied Syrian territory. (Territory they did not occupy before we took up the battle against Assad.)
The problem is, will the US be smart enough to go to Assad and ask if a) the US can wipe out our mutual enemies in Syrian territory; and b) would Assad’s air force like to participate? Such an approach would constitute a break-through in Syria, recognizing Assad’s authority (essential to the country’s stability at this point) and opening the door to a different relationship between our two countries based on mutual interests. After all, Assad has now gotten rid of the chemical weapons that were one of our main complaints at one point. Why not stop fighting somebody who can help us? It would also give the US a chance to show it can be friends with a country allied to Russia without trying to make the country choose sides.
I am not sure that is going to happen. To listen to the talking heads and spokespersons of Important People, nobody seems willing to concede an inch to declared enemy Assad and the US doesn’t need anybody’s permission to defend its vital interests. Well, we’ve heard that often enough in the past twenty years, although it seems to be a principle that only applies to us and our friends. The US didn’t need UN approval to start bombing Serbia on behalf of separatists, and now we will bomb Syrian territory without the permission of the country whose troubles have been largely created by inept US interventionism. Even worse, I have a strong suspicion that if the US starts bombing Syrian territory to take out ISIS, it will be tempted to go a bit farther and take out Assad, too. And who will stop us if that is what we decide? How about if the US declares a whole part of Syria “no-man’s land” and decides it has the right to do air exclusion zones patrolled by US jets? Who will stop it? The answer is nobody.
Thus to the fall-out. Someone from the Pentagon suggested that going into Syria after ISIS would trigger terrorism in the US. You betcha. I said in a recent article on my blog that these fiends have probably already infiltrated over our southern border disguised as Guatemalan orphans. They are in place and trained and ready and eager. So if we bomb ISIS in Syria and shortly thereafter you see a video of some poor shopper at Walmart getting her head cut off in an empty warehouse, you should remember Obama’s disdain for a secure border, and the disdain of every US official who supported his assault on US security. If we go after ISIS in Syria, while we are unprepared on our borders and at home, the Americans are going to face some very bad times. Terrorism in the US will be the immediate result of US action in Syria. I’d go farther and say that US intelligence has information of threats inside the US linked to ISIS, hence Dempsey’s warning.
Secondly, if the US should act without Syrian authorization, the US is going to be challenged in the international arena (I hear all the whoopdy-doos). The US never acts anywhere without getting the say-so of the country involved unless we are at war with the country in question. Are we at war with Syria? Or are we at war with ISIS and affiliated madmen? Our policies are so confounded and confused that it is impossible to discern any cohesive moral foundation or even logic. Our policies are tripping all over themselves.
Among the most vociferous supporters of Syria’s rights will be Russia, Syria’s long-time friend and supporter, including in a military sense. I suspect that the US will be wary of trying to unseat Assad through the Trojan Horse of ISIS, but if they do then we will be looking at nightmarish scenarios across a whole region with Russia siding with and arming Assad but not fighting for him with its soldiers (maybe with its fighter pilots as training). And if the US gets further bogged down in the Middle East, look for problems elsewhere. Russia, for example, could take advantage of the US preoccupation elsewhere to take the slice of Ukraine it must have to secure its naval base in Crimea. The Chinese have a few chores they’d like to take care of territory-wise, so we could see things heat up out that-a-way. Japan is no doubt lying awake at night wondering why it never developed a nuclear weapon and how quickly they can do it.
It is a bleak scenario and a vital US election looming. Let’s hope the sane will rule the day, we exterminate the lice in ISIS and elsewhere, and peace and harmony will reign. Let’s pray, in fact.