(Bumped)
The unusual ad hoc mixture of supporters of the US military involvement in Libya can cause heads to explode among those with other principles. I count myself as having a shattered skull.
The weird mixture of automatic supporters of Obama’s usual muddle and wrong-headed policies together with many neocons who automatically endorse humanitarian foreign interventions even when our national security is not seriously threatened have provided cover for a descent into madness.
Heads are exploding among those of us who require clearer goals that further our national interests and demand the will and means to achieve them. But, as Congressman Duncan Hunter points out in this op-ed, the Constitution does not really restrict President Obama’s military intervention. Only the uproar of Americans against Obama’s dangerous flailing and specific restrictions that may be passed by Congress can save the US from further squandering our servicemembers’ lives, our strapped wealth, and our credibility in the world as the actor who has the will and means to accomplish serious goals.
If one wanted to find a country where civilians have been and are currently being slaughtered by a minority despot who also directly supports the most dangerous armed foes of the US and its MidEast allies -- Hezbollah and Hamas, armed by Iran, go no further than Syria.
Junior Assad, of the splinter Allawite Shia sect, faces uprisings by majority Sunnis throughout Syria. He is brutally murdering the rebels. See the map at the link.
Assad has virtually subjugated Lebanon, squashing its Cedar Spring and helping its Hezbollah ally to turn Lebanon into a launch pad for missiles that have and will again reach throughout northern Israel. Syria serves as a way-station to send longer-range missiles to Hamas in Gaza, that now are launched into southern zones of Tel Aviv and into the major port at Ashdod. Syria has served as a privileged sanctuary for terrorists and trainers killing Americans and Iraqis in Iraq. Syria is a reliable ally of the region’s archfoe, Iran. In short, Syria is an immediate and severe threat to peace and to US interests throughout the Middle East.
Assad’s air force could relatively easily be destroyed, and his ground forces meted irreparable damage, by similar actions as we’re now taking in Libya. Assad’s minority regime could not survive. That would be a worthwhile goal, within our means, if the Obama administration actually had the sense and will to put US national security interests above all.
P.S.: Also see this analysis from JINSA, "Syrian Turmoil Could Benefit the Region." --Also see "Secretary of Defense Robert Gates Urges Syria Regime Overthrow Against White House Policy." -- Two more links: Elliott Abrams in the Washington Post, "Ridding Syria of a despot," and Michael Ledeen on Iranian snipers caught shooting Syrian rebels.
P.P.S.: Secretary of State Clinton notes a distinction that doesn't make a difference:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States deplores the violence in Syria, but does not expect intervention in the Middle East country.
"There's a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities, than police actions which frankly have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see," Clinton said Sunday on the CBS program "Face the Nation," comparing the situations in Syria and Libya.
Senator Lieberman, Chair of the Homeland Security Committee, however, is a bit clearer on whether the US should intervene against the Assad slaughter of rebels:
Lieberman told host Chris Wallace that if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad begins to slaughter his own people he could face an international coalition willing to implement a no-fly zone as they have done in Libya.
Lieberman said he would support U.S. intervention "if Assad does what Qaddafi was doing, which is to threaten to go house to house and kill anyone who's not on his side."
"There's a precedent now that the world community has set in Libya and it's the right one," Lieberman said. "We're not going to stand by and allow this Assad to slaughter his people like his father did years ago and in doing so we're being consistent with our American values and we're also on the side of the Arab people who want a better chance for a decent life."
Senator Lieberman must be missing the slaughters that Assad is already committing. Intervention in Syria should be put on the front-burner of the Obama administration, as more analysts correctly raise the issue of priorities and national security. Secretary of Defense Gates remarked that Libya is not a "vital interest" for the US.
Despite the heavy involvement of U.S. forces and the rising costs of the Libyan operation, Gates said that Libya did not rank high on the list of U.S. national security concerns.
There would be proper concern as to what may follow Assad. However, as the Sunni majority would be in control, instead of Assad's Shia Alawite sect, it is unlikely that Syria would continue as a paw for Iran or arming Hezbollah and Hamas. That's a victory in itself.
P.P.P.S.: Ed Morrissey lashes into the Obama administration and Senator Lieberman. "In Syria, our national interests and security interests are much more clear — as they are in Iran." -- Martin Indyk, usually a parrot to liberal hopes that coddling Middle East tyrants will further peace, finds the correct road now, to Damascus.
“There’s much more upside than downside for the U.S.,” said Martin S. Indyk, the vice president for foreign policy at the Brookings Institution. “We have an interest in counterbalancing the advantages Iran has gained in the rest of the region. That makes it an unusual confluence of our values and interests.”
