Scoot Blog: A question about Syria no one is asking
by Scoot,posted Sep 10 2013 7:43PM
The one question that no one seems to be asking is, “why did the Assad Regime order chemical weapons to be used of its own civilians?” Videos of men, women and 426 children suffering a painful death or the sight of their dead bodies were certain to ignite a response from President Obama and the United States.
Syria is no military match for the United States and Syrian President Assad would be well aware of our military capabilities – so why would he attack civilians that posed no imminent threat to his power?
Russia and Iran are allies of Syria. Syria borders Jordan and Israel – two of our allies in the region. Could there be a strategic reason for Syria inviting the U.S. to launch a military attack? I realize there is not always logic behind the decisions of evil dictators, but I can’t help but wonder if Syria, and its allies, are setting the U.S. up for military strikes that would become an excuse to broaden the current civil war and further disrupt the region?
Today, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to give President Obama the authority to use military force against Syria in response for Syria’s use of chemical weapons against its own people. And the debate over whether the U.S. should launch a military attack against Syria seems to get more confusing every day.
Republican Senator John McCain, who Saturday said he supported the President’s plan to attack Syria, now says he does not support the resolution passed by the Senate panel because it does not go far enough in terms of the use of our military.
Saturday, President Obama said that he wanted to turn the decision about using military action against Syria over to Congress because Congress represents the voice of the America people. However, today speaking to reporters in Sweden, the President said that he retains the right to attack Syria, regardless of whether he gets the approval of Congress.
According to a new Washington Post/ABC poll: nearly 60% of Americans oppose military strikes against Syria - fewer than 40% support it. Democrats and Republicans are even divided on this issue – demonstrating that bipartisanship may not be completely dead in Washington. Among Democrats: 54% oppose action against Syria and 42% support it. Among Republicans: 55% oppose the action and 43% are in support. The opinions of Independents were more lopsided with 65% opposing any military action against Syria with 25% supporting it.
Americans, and the world, are still coping with the overwhelming intelligence that led us into Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction only to be embarrassed that our intelligence was not accurate. Understandably, Americans are war-weary because of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt and still the wounds of Vietnam are part of this nation’s psyche.
With respect for many of the politicians who have expressed their support for President Obama’s plan to punish Syrian President Assad for the use of chemical weapons, I have yet to be convinced that a military attack on Syria is also in the best interest of our national security. Also, the projected goals of the Administration seem confusing. The plan is not to remove Assad from office, but some reports seem to indicate that removal from office is a goal. Any attack to weaken Assad’s forces would benefit the opposition forces that are diverse and have ties to terrorist organizations, like al Qaeda.
I have heard it said that there are no good options. If that is the case, would no action against Syria be a better option than launching military strikes that could lead to numerous, unpredictable ramifications?
I am still haunted by the possibility that Syria’s use of chemical weapons against its own people could be a deliberate attempt to engage the United States. And if that is the case – then why?
You and I may not be politicians or military strategists – but by turning the decision about attacking Syria over to Congress – President Obama has symbolically turned the decision over the us – the America people.