January 22, 2022

Attacking Syria is Against our National Security Interest

Secretary of State John Kerry appeared on September 1, 2013 on five Sunday television networks to persuade the nation regarding the need and desire http://www.usnews.com/pubdbimages/image/54655/widemodern_kerry02_130830620x413.jpgof President Barack Obama for a limited military action against Syria for what he said was the use of chemical weapons on civilians. Kerry stated the following: “We have learned through samples that were provided to the United States and that have now been tested from the first responders in east Damascus that hair samples and blood samples have tested positive for signatures of sarin, a deadly gas. So this case is building and this case will build.” However, some Democrats and Republicans in Congress question whether an attack against Syria is necessary or appropriate at this time.

Michael Doyle wrote an article called “Obama presses skeptical Congress on attack” which was published in The Miami Herald on September 2, 2013. Doyle explained that U.S. Representative Scott Rigell, Republican from Virginia, said that “what I am troubled by is that after the strike, the Assad regime is still there.” U.S. Representative Peter King, Republican from New York and former chairman of the House of Representatives Homeland Security Committee, told Fox News Channel on September 1, 2013 that “If the vote were held today, it would probably be a no vote, it is going to be difficult to get their vote through in Congress, especially when there is going to be time during the next nine days for opposition to build up to it.” Devin Nunes, Republican from California and a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, stated the following: “The limited military response endorsed by President Obama shows no clear goal, tactical objective or, in fact, any coherence whatsoever, and is supported neither by myself nor the American people. President Obama has gone from leading from behind, to not leading at all, to now hiding behind the Congress.”

Senators McCain and Graham support Obama´s desire to attack Syria 

Doyle pointed out that two veteran lawmakers, Senator John McCain, Republican from Arizona, and Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican from South Carolina, who seem to have been in favor of military intervention, are now skeptical of the appropriateness of a military attack against Assad regime. Both senators were saying they “cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria that are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield.”

On September 2, 2013, both Republican senators were invited to meet with the president in the White House. After the meeting they said that Obama promised them to upgrade the Syrian Free Army and degrade the army of Assad. Now both of them support Obama´s resolution in Congress. Both senators McCain and Graham were very critical of the president for his failure to intervene in Syria two years ago before thousands of al Qaida jihadists moved to Syria to try to topple Assad. Senator Graham called Obama’s policy in Syria a debacle. Senator McCain stated that a no vote by Congress on the president’s resolution would be catastrophic for the Middle East since Obama had drawn a red line and our credibility would be negatively impacted.

The war in Syria

Since the civil war started in Syria on March 2011 more than 100,000 have died. Over two million refugees have moved to other countries in the region. On September 3, 2013, the United Nations Refugee Agency reported the numbers of Syrian refugees in these neighboring nations: Lebanon, http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02397/syria_2397459b.jpg720,003; Jordan, 519,676; Turkey, 463,885; Iraq, 171,984; and Egypt, 111,101. The U.N. agency affirms there are thousands more refugees that have not been counted since they have not filled out the paperwork. Approximately 5,000 Syrians are walking through the dessert each day, including unaccompanied children, trying to leave the war-torn nation. Eight million have been displaced out of the 20 million population in Syria, which represents 40% of its population. The conflict in Syria is one of the worst tragedies of the 21st century.

Senator Jim Inhofe, Republican from Oklahoma and the senior Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, told Fox News Sunday that he does not think Congress will approve the authorization. Some Democrats in Congress are not convinced that attacking Syria is in the best interest of our nation. Representative Elijah Cummings, Democrat from Maryland, said “another thing we want to know, and my constituents asked over and over, what is the relationship to the United States? In other words, is there a threat?” Senator Christopher Murphy, Democrat from Connecticut, said he was not convinced that it is a good idea to launch missiles against the Syrian government.

Doyle explained in his The Miami Herald article that Washington think tanks, the Arab League, and international humanitarian watchdogs are against the United States-led intervention in Syria. Analysts of the conflict warned that such a military strike was risky and unlikely to benefit either the Syrian people or the long-term Western interests in the Middle East. Instead, these analysts would like the United States to lead every diplomatic push to get the warring parties to a negotiating table. They feel that striking Syria now runs the risk of widening the war in ways that would only cause more suffering and instability for Syria and its neighbors. Meanwhile, the Obama administration continues to brief lawmakers in private and explain why it is important to attack the regime of President Bashar Assad.

The Obama administration was ready to strike Syria without Congressional approval since the president has no respect for our Constitution and has ignored Congress on multiple occasions. However, a poll by NBC News revealed that 79% of Americans, including almost 70% of Democrats and 90% of Republicans, want President Barack Obama to seek approval from Congress before deciding to conduct a military attack on Syria. Additionally, 140 members of Congress, including 21 Democrats, have signed a letter saying that Obama would violate the Constitution by striking Syria without first getting authorization from Congress. The NBC poll also revealed that 50% of Americans oppose the military action by the United States, compared with 42% who support a military strike. The NBC survey also found out that only 21% of respondents think that taking action against the Syrian government is in the national interest of the United States, while 33% disagree, and 45% do not know enough to have an opinion. The NBC poll indicated that only 27% of the respondents say that military action by the United States will improve the situation for Syrian civilians, compared to 41% who say it will not. Obviously, Americans are wary of a military strike in Syria and do not support Obama in his desire to intervene in that nation.

Risks of a military attack on Syria

Anne Barnard and Alissa J. Rubin wrote an article entitled “Experts fear that U.S. plan to strike Syria overlooks risks” which was published in The New York Times on August 30, 2013. The reporters reiterated that President Obama is seeking Congressional approval for a limited and narrow military strike against Syria. However, the reporters indicated that Obama’s objective, as viewed by many concerned Middle East experts, would worsen the violence in Syria and intensify a fight for regional influence between Iran and Saudi Arabia. A number of diplomats and experts say the plan to attack Syria could result in a range of unintended consequences, such as a surge in anti-Americanism that could help the dictator of Syria, Bashar al Assad, and expand the regional conflict by dragging other countries such as Israel and Turkey.

The reporters of The New York Times wrote that diplomats, who are familiar with President Assad, said that there is no way to know how he would respond to a military attack by the United States. They questioned what the United States would do if the dictator chooses to order a chemical strike or other major retaliation against his people. The United States then would have to choose between a loss of credibility or a more expansive and highly unpopular war.

These experts are concerned that a military attack by our nation could open the door for the rebels, who are linked to al Qaeda, to take over Syria. They are equally concerned regarding an intervention by the United States in a conflict that is no longer a civil war in Syria. This conflict has now become a regional Middle Eastern war. The conflict involves Iran, Russia, and the Iranian-backed Hezbollah, the Shiite terrorist organization in Lebanon, against al Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood rebels, and the Free Syrian Army backed by Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf nations. Iran and Syria have threatened to unleash attacks on Israel if the dictator Assad was in danger. The terrorist organization Hamas, created by Egypt´s Muslim Brotherhood in the Gaza Strip, is supporting the Sunni-led Syria rebellion.

Another major problem pointed out by The New York Times reporters was that verifying information in Syria is extraordinarily difficult. Therefore, another risk could be that the United States has faulty intelligence and is blaming incorrectly the Assad regime for the chemical attack. There is the possibility that al Qaeda carried the chemical attacks with the purpose of involving the United States in this conflict.

Paul Joseph Watson wrote in the website Infowars on August 30, 2013 that Syrian rebels in a suburb of Damascus have admitted to the Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for the chemical weapons incidents. Western powers have blamed Assad’s military forces for this incident. The rebels indicated that the chemical attack was the result of an accident caused rebels by the mishandling of chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia. Many rebels told Gavlak that Saudi Arabia is paying their salaries and is providing them with these chemical weapons.

Katie Pavlich wrote an article for Townhall.com where she stated that U.S. intelligence agencies have uncovered new evidence that al Qaeda-linked terrorists in Benghazi are training foreign jihadists to fight with Syria’s rebels. Ansar al Sharia, the terrorist group that assassinated Ambassador Chris Stevens and three others in Benghazi, is running several training camps for jihadists in that city in Libya. The reporter also pointed out that Russia and China are very angry about a potential strike to Syria by our country. Representatives from both nations walked out of a United Nations Security Council meeting on August 29, 2013.

General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently stated that the application of military force rarely produces the outcome that our nation wants. Military officers have stated that they are uneasy about a potential Syrian missile strike because it could have unintended consequences while we are attempting to depart from Afghanistan. Some high ranking military officers do not understand what is the political end that the United States is trying to achieve.

On September 4, 2013, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 10 to 7 in favor of authorizing the use of force in Syria. However, several senators spoke forcefully against a United States military strike warning that it would draw the United States into a growing conflict that could spread throughout the Middle East. The close vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is indicative of the deep divisions within Congress regarding President Obama´s resolution for a limited military strike with Syria. Seven Democrats and three Republicans, Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, Senator John McCain of Arizona, and Jeff Flake of Arizona voted for the resolution.

Members of Congress opposed to Obama´s resolution

Five Republicans, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, Senator James Risch of Idaho, Marco Rubio of Florida, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and John Barrasso of Wyoming, as well as two Democrats, Senator Christopher Murphy of Connecticut and Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico voted against the resolution. Senator Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts voted “present.”

Senator Marco Rubio stated the following: “This idea that a military response is the only way to respond to what is happening in Syria it is just not true. Instead our response should have always been, and still should be, a multifaceted plan to help the Syrian people get rid of Assad and replaced him with the secular and moderate government they deserve.” Senator Rand Paul, Republican from Kentucky, stated the following: “I don’t see a clear-cut or compelling American interest, I see a horrible tragedy, but I don’t see that our involvement will lessen the tragedy. I think it may well make the tragedy worse. I think more civilian deaths could occur. I think an attack on Israel could occur. I think an attack on Turkey could occur. I think you could get more Russian involvement and more Iranian involvement. I don’t see anything good coming of our involvement.”

There were also very critical comments made by congressmen during the hearing of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee. Representative Ted Poe, Republican from Texas, was concerned that our nation would attack Assad but leave him in power, as the president has stated was his objective. Representative Poe made the following remarks: “Assad fights back. He doesn’t just take it. He retaliates against us or lets Iran retaliate against Israel all because we have come into this civil war. So they shoot back. Then what do we do once Americans are engaged? Do we escalate or do we not fight back?” Representative Michael McCaul, Republican from Texas, was concerned that chemical weapons could be used against Americans by Syrian rebels who are increasingly dominated by the radical Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda jihadist terrorists from other countries.

It is uncertain whether President Obama would succeed with his resolution in Congress. Both the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress are split between those who want to intervene in Syria and those who do not. Members of Congress are aware that there are not hearing any support for an attack on Syria from their constituents at home. It appears that prospects for approval in the House of Representatives, where Republicans are majority, is small. Even though the Speaker of the House John Boehner, Republican from Ohio, and the Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Republican from Virginia, are in favor of the president’s resolution, they have said that they will not pressure other members on what they consider a “conscious vote.”

Many in Congress are not convinced over what would be gained by attacking Syria. These lawmakers are not sure that limited missile and air strikes proposed by the president would shift the balance in this bloody war, a conflict in which the Assad regime appears to have the upper hand.

Russian report blames rebels for a previous sarin attack

In a 100-page report the Russian government stated that the March 19, 2013 sarin attack in Aleppo suburb that killed 26 people and injured 86 others was carried by Syrian rebels and not by the Assad regime. This report was given to the United Nations in July 2013. Russia has warned the United States and its allies not to attack Syria until the United Nations have completed a detailed scientific study into the August 21 chemical attack.

The United Nations collected samples from the site and the victims of the chemical attack which are currently being examined at the United Nations chemical weapons laboratories in Europe. Russia accused the United States of  “hysteria” about a potential military strike which Russia believes is similar to the false claims and faulty intelligence that preceded the United States invasion of Iraq in 2003.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had asked the United States to delay any military strike until the results of the investigation are known. Previously, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon had stated that “any punitive action taken against Syria for an alleged chemical weapons attack would be illegal without the Security Council´s approval or a sound case for self-defense.” He also warned that a military strike against Syria could create more turmoil and bloodshed in Syria. Ban stated that an ongoing investigation by United Nations chemical weapon experts “is uniquely placed to independently establish the facts in our objective in an impartial manner.”

The Obama administration had already said that they did not need an investigation by the United Nations  to determine what had happened in Syria since it had already determined that the Assad regime was responsible for the chemical attack. The White House spokesman stated that officials had studied the Russian report but have found no reason to change its assessment regarding the Assad regime’s responsibility for the August 21, 2013 chemical attack.

Grave concerns about the Syrian rebels who are fighting Assad

Many knowledgeable observers and former and current politicians are greatly concerned of the great numbers of rebels affiliated to al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood who are fighting the Assad regime. Cliff Kincaid in an article entitled “The Planned Destruction of Christians in Syria” published on September 3, 2013 expressed  concern regarding our military intervention in Syria since it will be the victory for the Muslim Brotherhood and associated terrorist groups in Syria as well as the genocide of the remaining Christians there. One must not forget that the Muslim Brotherhood has assassinated hundreds or perhaps thousands of Christians in Egypt and destroyed many of their churches.

Pamela Geller was harsh on both Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham. She asked “Which Muslim Brotherhood operatives are advising McCain and Graham?” Geller wrote the following: “McCain said that blocking Obama’s Syria strike would be catastrophic. No, Senator McCain, Obama’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was catastrophic, and so is backing the Brotherhood and al Qaeda in Syria.”

Kincaid reported that during the hearing of House of Representatives Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa held on June 25, 2013, the Chairman Republican Representative Christopher Smith made the following remarks: “The al-Nusra Front, a U.S. designated foreign terrorist organization, has been blamed for much of the sectarian rhetoric and violence, but dozens of the opposition groups ascribe to Islamist or Salafist-jihadist ideologies and mingle with the Free Syrian Army which the U.S. may now be supporting.”

Kincaid pointed out that Dr. John Eibner, CEO of Christian Solidarity International, said that “the Obama administration has given a green light to Sunni countries in the region to militarily destabilize Syria and that the human rights of religious minorities, especially Christians are at risk.” The Miami Herald reported on September 5, 2013 that rebels linked to al Qaeda launched an assault on September 4, 2013 on a Christian village in the densely populated western portion of Syria. The assault was carried out by rebels from the al Qaeda-linked Jabhat al-Nusra group. The Christian village, 40 miles northeast of Damascus, is home to about 2,000 people, some of whom still speak a version of Aramaic, the language spoken by Jesus Christ. What a pity would be to kill the few speakers of Aramaic that are left in the world!

Kincaid also reported that armed rebels affiliated with the Free Syrian Army raided the Christian-populated al-Duvair village in Syria and massacred all its civilian residents, including women and children. At the end of his article Kincaid wrote the following: “Is President Obama about to become party to the Muslim Brotherhood´s genocidal process? If so, how many Republicans besides McCain and Graham will join with Obama?”

C. J. Chivers wrote an article entitled “Brutality of Syrian Rebels Posing Dilemma  in West” which was published in The New York Times on September 5, 2013. The reporter described a video smuggled out of Syria by a former rebel who grew disgusted by the killings. The video showed Syrian’s rebels executing seven captured Syrian soldiers after reading a poem. The reporter pointed out that “there is a growing body of evidence of an increasingly criminal environment populated by gangs of highwaymen, kidnappers, and killers who were fighting against the Assad regime.” He explained that there are many groups of rebels openly allied with al Qaeda and that an American military action could inadvertently strengthen Islamic jihadist and criminals.

During the House of Representatives hearing, Secretary of State John Kerry told representative Michael McCaul, Republican from Texas, that “there is a real moderate opposition that exists.” Kerry estimated that only 15% to 20% were “bad guys” or extremists. Representative Michael McCaul told Kerry that he had been told in briefings that half of the opposition fighters were extremists. Is Kerry deliberately misinforming Congress? Kerry´s testimony to Congress did not help the Obama administration since intelligence agencies had told lawmakers in key Congressional committees that about 50% of the rebels were al Qaida terrorists.

Chivers explained that two of the rebel groups have acknowledged that they have ties to al Qaeda. These two groups are the Nusra Front and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Both Islamic terrorist groups have attracted thousands foreign jihadists and are using terrorist tactics to create in Syria a society ruled by Islamic law. These groups are already controlling parts of Aleppo and certain provinces in Syria.

Who can trust President Barack Obama on Syria?

President Obama has repeatedly lied to the nation on what happened at Benghazi and regarding the multitude scandals perpetrated by his administration. How can we be sure that he is telling the truth about the chemical attack in Syria? How can we be sure that he does not want to help the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria to achieve power as he did in Egypt? One cannot forget that Obama has allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate  his government and that his brother Malik Obama works for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Sudan.

The death toll given by the Obama administration for an alleged Syrian Army´s gas attack against civilians is far higher that confirmed counts from other nations and activist groups. The Obama administration said that the August 21, 2013 attack with chemical weapons in the suburbs of Damascus killed 1,429 people, including at least 426 children. Both Great Britain and France has cited a far lower number of confirmed deaths. British intelligence believe that at least 350 people have been killed. French intelligence confirmed at least 281 deaths. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which is regarded as one of the most reliable sources of information, said it had confirmed 502 deaths, including 80 children and another 137 women.

China and Russia send warships to the coast of Syria

The LibertadUSA website published an article entitled “China sends warships to the coast of Syria” on September 6, 2013. It explained that China is sending warships to the coast of Syria to watch the action of the warships of the United States and Russia. The  Jinggangshan, an amphibious ship that carries missiles, was seen navigating towards  the Suez Canal and it is believed that other Chinese ships are also on the way. China stated that a United States military action against Syria would have a negative impact on the world’s economy, especially on the price of oil which would increase significantly. China also stated that President Obama could not prove that the chemical attack was the responsibility of the Syrian government. An editorial in a Chinese newspaper indicated that the American news media has ignored reports that Syrian rebels admitted using chemical weapons in the August 21, 2013 attack. It accused the White House “to have ignored logic while the drums of war are beating.”

The LibertadUSA article also revealed that Russia was sending two destroyers and a cruiser carrying missiles to the east Mediterranean sea to reinforce the other three Russian warships that were sent to the region during the last two weeks. The United States has five destroyers and amphibious ship in the east Mediterranean awaiting orders to attack Syria. The aircraft carrier USS Nimitz and three other warships are near the Red Sea also awaiting orders from Washington.

The Pentagon prepares for war

Since the Assad regime has had plenty of warning of a potential attack, it has dispersed its forces and moved its weapons throughout Syria. President Obama has ordered the Pentagon to develop an expanded list of potential targets. Pentagon officials have said that the Obama administration is putting more emphasis in degrading the Syrian army. The Pentagon is now planning to use in addition to the four destroyers in the Mediterranean with Tomahawk cruise missiles, U.S. Air Force bombers as well as French aircraft. This, of course, raises the possibility that American and French aircraft could be shot by the air defenses of Syria, some of whom  are staffed by Russian soldiers.

Obama failed to get support from key allies at the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg

When President Barack Obama arrived in St. Petersburg, Russia on September 5, 2013 for the G-20 economic summit meeting he was received coldly by Russian President Vladimir Putin in a 15-second handshake encounter. Later, the two leaders met for a 20- minute session on Syria that resulted in no agreement. Obama was hoping to enlist support among some G-20 nations for his military strike against Syria, but he failed to convince any world leaders.

European Union President Herman Van Rompuy stated in Saint Petersburg that while he respects Obama’s call for action, he would like to move forward and address the Syrian crises through a process at the United Nations. So far, our nation has only the weak support of France. The French president, Francois Hollande, seemed to be backtracking and stated that he, too, wanted to wait for the conclusion of the U.N. investigation over the chemical attack and also the vote in Congress before committing his nation to a military strike in Syria. President Obama had to admit that “the international community was paralyzed.”

Obama shamefully denies that he set a “red line” against Syria for the use of chemical weapons

President Obama said on September 4, 2013, that he didn’t set the “red line” against Syria for the use of chemical weapons. At a news conference held in Stockholm, Sweden before the G-20 economic summit meeting in Russia, Obama stated the following: “I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line. My credibility is not on the line. The international community´s credibility is on the line. And America and Congress’ credibility is on the line because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important.” However, there was a contradiction in his denial regarding as to who set the “red line”. In August 2012 at a White House news conference the president stated the following: “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, about what a red line for us is. We start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That will change my calculus. That changes my equation.”

Mr. President, stop lying and blaming others and assume responsibility for your actions! President Obama has asked Congressional approval for a resolution authorizing a military attack upon Syria, although he has said repeatedly that he has the authority to act without Congress. Why is he then asking Congress to do something that he says he can do without Congressional approval? More than likely, he is seeking Congressional approval in the event that his attack on Syria is a colossal mistake. If so, he could share the blame with Congress and not assume it alone.

This was a most shameful and untruthful statement made by a president who frequently lies at home and abroad. Obama constantly refuses to accept responsibility for his actions or mistake and he likes to blame everyone everywhere except himself. His lack of leadership in assuming responsibility as president for his actions is appalling and disgraceful. A great leader always assumes responsibility for what he does and for his mistakes! Obama´s serious lack of leadership has made him to be perceived by our enemies, as well as, our allies as a weak president and this endangers our national security. It is obvious why he cannot find support with respect to Syria when even our closest ally, Great Britain, refuses to follow Obama’s lead. Our allies simply do not trust our president as a world leader due to his erratic world foreign policy and his abysmal foreign policy in the Middle East.

Obama’s administration officials provided contradictory testimony to Congress

James Rosen wrote an article entitled “Obama is having a tough time convincing wary lawmakers” which was published in The Miami Herald on September 7, 2013. The reporter pointed out that there is considerable reluctance in Congress to authorize an airstrike on Syria. He then went on to describe the missteps by administration officials, including top Cabinet officers and Pentagon officials. These officials provided murky or even contradictory responses to questions from frustrated members of Congress as well as reporters.

Rosen explained that members of Congress from both parties were openly skeptical that Obama and his officials could make good on their repeated pledges regarding a U.S. attack limited in scope and short duration. Rosen pointed out that despite Secretary of State John Kerry´s assurances to Congress during his two days of testimony that Obama is not asking Congress to go to war, a bipartisan group of lawmakers believe that once bombs start flying all bets are off.

James Rosen wrote that “much of the damage to Obama’s cause was self-inflicted by the men he dispatched to Capitol Hill.” He explained that Secretary Kerry began his testimony by saying that no U.S. soldiers would be sent to Syria. However, Kerry then  said, that if Syria imploded or if chemical weapons were about to be taken by al Qaeda-linked  rebels, the United States might have to send soldiers to Syria. These statements brought an outcry of complaints by members of Congress, so Kerry quickly backtracked. Then came the testimony of Kerry explaining that only between 15% to 25% of the Syrian opposition fighting Assad was made up of radical Islamists and with al Qaeda ties. Those numbers given by Kerry were not the same given previously by officials of intelligence agencies in briefings to members of Congress. Intelligence officials believe that up to 50% of the rebels are linked to al Qaeda.

Rosen pointed out that Bruce Riedel, who served under five presidents as a CIA counterterrorism expert and who is now a Brookings Institution analyst, said the following: “Foreign fighters linked to al Qaeda have been flowing into Syria to take the fight against Assad and that a U.S. strike against the regime would only strengthen them more. We should have no illusion that at the end of the day, the more we weaken Bashar Assad, the more we’re going to end up having a bigger al Qaeda problem in the future.”

Mark Alexander wrote an article entitled “The Syrian Gambit: Critical Mass in the Middle East” which was published on the Patriot Post on September 5, 2013. He explained that the Heritage Foundation wrote the following: “Military force should be used only if there is a clear, achievable, realistic purpose. Missile strikes are unlikely to deter the Assad regime and prevent further abuses. Rather, the U.S. risks escalating its involvement in the crisis. Missile attacks… would only be seen as a sign that the U.S. is lacking a clear, decisive course of action. The Middle East would see this as another effort from the Obama administration to look for an easy button and lead from behind rather than exercise real, constructive leadership.”

Alexander pointed out that we should have no illusion about the consequences of attacking Syria, which are at best unpredictable. He wrote that “it is abundantly clear that  Obama’s foreign policy in the region has failed miserably.” Alexander pointed out that Teddy Roosevelt based his foreign policy on this maxim: “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” On the other hand, Obama based his foreign policy on this maxim: “Speak endlessly and carry a toothpick.”


This writer strongly believes that it would be a great mistake for our nation to launch a limited military strike against Syria, which would accomplish nothing of benefit for our national interest. The conflict in Syria is no longer a civil war but a regional conflict that also involves Russia. On one side of this conflict, there is Iran and its Shiite militia Hezbollah from Lebanon and Russia, which are supporting the dictator of Syria. On the other side, there is Sunni Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf countries as well as the Muslim Brotherhood, al Qaeda-affiliated rebels, and the Syrian Free Army. It has become a religious war between Shia and Sunni as well. Nothing positive will occur if our nation intervenes in this war.

It would be insane for the Obama administration to be helping the Libyan terrorist organization Anwar al Sharia, which assassinated our ambassador and three others in Benghazi. How ironic would it be that, if Obama attacks Syria, he would be fighting on the same side as these jihadists who killed our men at Benghazi. Instead of killing these terrorists in Libya with drones, as the president should have done long ago, these Islamic terrorists would be our allies. This writer has reported that the Obama administration had been conducting a secret CIA-run gun-running operation in Libya in 2012, moving tons of weapons by cargo ships to Turkey. The Turks would then send these weapons to the rebels who were fighting against the Assad regime. During the  afternoon on the day that Ambassador Christ Stevens was assassinated, a video showed him saying goodbye to a Turkish diplomat in front of the consulate/CIA safe house at Benghazi. It was for this very reason that President Obama and all others in his administration have never told the truth about Benghazi to the American people. Instead, they initiated a massive cover-up.

Whoever wins this war will probably be an enemy of Israel and the United States. Attacking Syria would endanger our ally Israel, which has now mobilized its army at a great financial cost to prepare for a possible attack from Syria in retaliation for the United States launching at Syria Tomahawk missiles from our destroyers in the Mediterranean. Our nation could also be attacked by Islamic jihadists in retaliation for an intervention in Syria. The American people are tired of expensive wars in the Middle East that do not enhance our national security. This writer believes that our nation needs to balance its budget and reduce the national debt instead of wasting much needed funds on unproductive wars. This writer does not see any advantage for our nation in attacking Syria. The president should not have drawn any “red lines” with Syria. This shows his incompetence on foreign policy one more time.

The British Parliament wisely decided not to support the U.S. on this occasion and turned down the British prime minister’s request to send British ships to attack Syria. If Congress were to approve such a misguided military intervention, no one can predict the unintended consequences. Our nation could very well be involved in another major war in the Middle East.

Additionally, there is no certainty as to who was responsible for the chemical attack on civilians in Syria. Certainly, it could have very well been al Qaeda since a military strike by our country will help them achieve victory and take over an important nation like Syria. The Muslim Brotherhood’s government of Egypt, before President Morsi was ousted, was also providing support to the rebels in Syria. Unfortunately, our government had faulty intelligence in 2003 regarding Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq. Our country went to war against the Iraqi Sunni Muslim bloody dictator. After more than a trillion dollars of expenditures and 4,300 American soldiers dead and thousands wounded, we replaced him with a Shia government that is now friendly with the Shia government of  our mortal enemy of Iran. This writer opposed the war against Iraq since the bloody ruler of that country was an enemy of Iran and had fought an almost ten-year  war with Iran.

This writer hopes that, as members of Congress look into and study the implications of this conflict in Syria, they would conclude that we should not intervene in this war. Congress should turn down the president’s request to go to war against Syria. Barack Obama has allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to infiltrate his government and has shamefully bowed before the King of Saudi Arabia. We cannot trust that this president is acting in the best interest of the United States­­­­­