Are we prepared for war with Syria?

Obama can no longer ignore Syria’s repeated disregard to his “red line” request. Photo: AP/ Syria and Iran

NEW YORK, September 8, 2013 — President Obama is in a political conundrum, as he explains his administration’s strong campaign against the Syrian government in response to its use of chemical weapons on their own citizens.

Obama can no longer ignore Syria’s repeated disregard to his “red line” threat from August 2012. The Syrian’s lack of regard for the President’s warning has forced the White House to do just enough to make a response, but not enough to make an impact.

SEE RELATED: KERN: Obama’s war in Syria: The Great Unifier

Washington could be hesitant to use military force against Syria’s Al-Assad because of Syria’s connection Russia, North Korea and Iran, whose military mite can collectively deliver a larger bang to the United States than Syria does.

If the United States targets Syria, it could hit innocent civilians. That result would be ironic, considering the goal is to slow down the genocide. If the U.S. decides to move forward with bombing Syrian military installations and airports with air strikes and drones, the strikes could limit Iran’s ability to provide direct aid to Syria.

The United States still awaits a Congressional authorization for the military strike. Perhaps the focus should be on public opinion and whether Americans actually support this potential confrontation which skeptics believe could lead to war. Previous decisions for military drone strikes in Libya and Pakistan did involve Congress. Congressional authorization would hold both the Legislative and Executive branch accountable if we do decide to go to war.

Hezbollah, China, Iran, and Russia have all supported Syria in the past and a military conflict with Syria could negatively affect the United States in ways we have not seen since the Second World War. One potential impact is that China could halt its trade partnership with Washington, which would be economically detrimental to the U.S. A military strike might also spark terrorist retaliation and weaken already fragile U.S. relations in the region.

Despite all of these possibilities, some say inaction from the White House would be irresponsible and detrimental to our national presence.

The Syrian government has taken every measure to retaliate against aggressors within their own borders. That conflict which has very little to do with the security of the United States. President Obama has repeatedly noted his disinterest in regime change, although the Saudis have called for justice from the Syrian government for attacking its own people.

Some ask why the United States would involve itself in Syria’s internal conflict while others worry a hostile Syrian regime could provide chemical weapons to U.S. enemies.

SEE RELATED: The worst case for Syria: A failed state and terrorist sanctuary

Any U.S. military response to Syria will have to be approved through Congress before the country gets involved in another long and undefined war in the Middle East. Despite the use of chemical and biological weapons in Syria, Mr. Obama has not decided against troops on the ground. Perhaps the President should recall his oath of office and see to whom his allegiance is, and whom he is sworn to protect by virtue of the Constitution.


This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

More from Common Sense Conservative
blog comments powered by Disqus


Please enable pop-ups to use this feature, don't worry you can always turn them off later.

Question of the Day
Photo Galleries
Popular Threads
Powered by Disqus