It is clear that America does not have varsity players on the field when it comes to Syria. I cannot remember an incident of foreign policy that was handled as poorly and incoherently as this. It's as if Belgium or Portugal were suddenly asked to head the U.N. Security Council and make some big decision on the world stage.
We're told that the "crisis" is at a boiling point because Assad's forces are on the verge of crushing the rebellion. Meanwhile, I have yet to hear a coherent explanation as to why the Syrian end result is of any consequence to AMERICA's national interest. None the less, we are supposed to support Obama's scheme to depose Assad?
If someone can provide me with a detailed explanation of what our strategic interest is in Syria, I'm all ears. It can't be much since we have almost completely written them off as a state that sponsors terrorism in the region and globally. America has had virtually no sway in Syria for a long time and this has never seemed to be a major issue before now. Over the last several years while we've been in Iraq, Syria functioned as the staging area for a variety of anti-Western individuals and forces to move into that country. Still Syria was never really a "strategic interest" that caused us to do anything meaningful.
Regime change, as a result of American influence, will not be favorable to us no matter who ends up in charge. Our intervention will ultimately make one set of our enemies stronger than they currently are - with our help. Obviously not good.
I simply cannot understand how people like John McCain and Lindsey Graham are so determined to repeat all the failures of the British Empire and somehow expect it to turn out differently. They are seriously delusional. But while Rhino-warriors have no problem starting another war, they are truly the outliers in the Republican party. Like the vast majority of the American people, most Republicans believe that we should stay out of Syria.
The left is a whole different beast. They are clueless when it comes to projecting strength or learning from history because, well, they think both concepts are icky. Obama's alleged silver tongue has done nothing but make the world more dangerous. Our enemies don't fear us, our allies can't trust us or they refuse to help us because they're governed by greater leftist dopes who can't be persuaded by someone with a spine because Obama has none.
Bottom line is, any intervention in Syria should be designed to serve the national interest of the United States, which Feckless Leader has no interest in supporting. Until the case can be made that enabling a victory for the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda serves our national interest, I vote NO on any type of military action in Syria.