Syria’s ‘rebels’ and soldiers agree: Military strikes will change nothing; Sen. Graham: If we don’t get this right, we could be nuked
Syria’s rebels and soldiers agree: military strikes will change nothing
Syria’s rebels and President Bashar al-Assad’s soldiers agree on next to nothing. They’ve killed each other by the tens of thousands in a war mired in stalemate. But they’re now agreed on one thing. The military strike America is preparing will not change anything.
For the rebels, the attack will be too little, too late; a strike so long delayed that it will destroy only empty buildings and broken warplanes.
For the government and its troops, it would be a petulant volley of Western frustration, born of the lies America has told the world about Assad’s responsibility for firing chemical weapons and of its determination to overthrow him.
Retired Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, former CIA director under President Barack Obama, called strongly Saturday for Congress to back the White House on Syria, declaring that military action against the regime is “necessary” to deter “Iran, North Korea and other would-be aggressors.”
“Failure of Congress to approve the president’s request would have serious ramifications not just in the Mideast but around the world,” Petraeus said in a four-sentence statement provided to POLITICO.
Sen. Graham: If we don’t get this right, we could be nuked
Senator weighs pushing for unpopular missile strike as his re-election opponents wait in the wings
MT. PLEASANT, S.C. — As one of the leading advocates for bipartisan immigration reform, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., had already firmly affixed himself to one cause deeply unpopular with conservatives heading into a re-election year.
Now as a war-weary Congress weighs a military strike in Syria, he finds himself championing another policy that risks antagonizing the base.
Graham is on board for launching targeted missile strikes in Syria to diminish its chemical weapon capacity and assist the rebels who have been stuck in a three-year slog with President Bashar Assad that’s resulted in more than 100,000 dead.
Next to Sen. John McCain, there’s no more forceful and visible advocate for a muscular response. Graham half-jokes about his ubiquitous appearances on the cable networks to talk foreign policy, but says he’s a highly-sought out guest because “I speak with an accent, but without a doubt.”
Obama’s Syria War Is Really About Iran and Israel
The dirty little not-so-secret behind President Obama’s much-lobbied-for, illegal and strategically incompetent war against Syria is that it’s not about Syria at all. It’s about Iran—and Israel. And it has been from the start.
By “the start,” I mean 2011, when the Obama administration gradually became convinced that it could deal Iran a mortal blow by toppling President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, a secular, Baathist strongman who is, despite all, an ally of Iran’s. Since then, taking Iran down a peg has been the driving force behind Obama’s Syria policy.
Not coincidentally, the White House plans to scare members of Congress into supporting the ill-conceived war plan by waving the Iranian flag in their faces. Even liberal Democrats, some of whom are opposing or questioning war with Syria, blanch at the prospect of opposing Obama and the Israel lobby over Iran.