Rep. Kerry Bentivolio of Michigan, a Vietnam War veteran who also served in the last Iraq conflict, gave his reasons for opposing Obama’s proposed military attack on Syria.
“What has been happening in Syria is truly a human tragedy. The nation has been torn apart by civil war. Tens of thousands have either lost their lives or been driven from their homes. It is without a doubt that Assad is not a friend of ours,” he said.
“However, it has also been made clear that those who oppose him have direct ties to al-Qaida. Whoever wins this war will not be affectionate toward the United States.”
Bingo, Rep. Bentivolio. As foolhardy as the Republican “leadership” is, there are still some intellectually honest people in Congress who use their brains.
Nobody denies the basic facts, including even the Obama Administration. By attacking the vicious dictator Assad, we’re helping an arguably even worse enemy—al Qaida, the people responsible for 9/11. Remember 9/11?
Secretary of State John Kerry’s only reply to this is, in essence, “Well, the more moderate elements of al Qaida can be counted on to help us after we defeat Syria.” More moderate? This would be like talking about the more moderate elements of Adolf Hitler’s regime, or Joseph Stalin’s brutal circle. Does anyone stop to contemplate just how irrational—indeed, insane—these claims of our present government officials are?
The level of evasion required to support such an action is almost incomprehensible.
Imagine if two Nazi sub-factions were fighting each other for control of Germany, or some other country. Would the U.S. come to the aid of one of those evil gangs? Or would we let them fight it out, hoping they simply destroy each other?
Obama is never held accountable for anything. This is what makes him truly unique, as a President—and not in a good way. If Obama were held accountable, people in both parties would be asking, “Why are we investing military force to help out either side in a fight between two self-evidently evil sides?” Instead, he gets to look grim and serious and act like he’s a real President.
This is not a case of siding with the lesser of two evils. Sure, the Syrian dictatorship uses chemical weapons. That’s unspeakably evil, just like nearly all of the things most dictatorships do. But al Qaida blows up American icons, skyscrapers and thousands of American lives. There’s probably no limit to what al Qaida-types will do, once they have the firepower. Biological warfare? Nuclear dirty bombs? Chemical warfare in the streets of an American city? In a New York minute, when and if they can. That’s why Islamic terrorist groups exist: To destroy America and, deeper than that, all things civilized or secular.
Why on earth would we help Muslim radicals out by using American military force to destroy one of their enemies for them? Let them destroy each other. That would actually be the best, most moral and most efficacious policy.
Some people argue against the use of force in Syria because of pacifism. These moral relativists think that no government is any better or worse than another. In other words, a dictatorship that uses chemical weapons against its own citizens has equal stature with a relatively free democratic republic, who doesn’t do such things. Pacifism and moral relativism are the wrong reasons to be against Obama’s intervention in Syria.
In the years following 9/11, leftists in the Democratic Party (Obama included,) as well as many libertarian-types, made the argument for pacifism and moral relativism. To the credit of the libertarian-type pacifists, they have remained consistent, whether it’s Bush’s or Obama’s war. But where are the pacifists in the Democratic Party now? If liberal Democrats in the Congress don’t vote in droves against Obama’s Syria invasion, then they are something darker than hypocrites (and perhaps we already knew that).
Stalwart Republicans such as John McCain and John Boehner seem stuck on “supporting the President” for the sake of the American republic. They seem to still be living in a time when the American President always meant well, and really was deep down a good guy.
But what is really left of our American republic, if we take part in a war where we help our most mortal enemy defeat one of their own enemies, when there’s absolutely no threat to American interests (as when the U.S. sided with Russia to defeat Nazi Germany)? And what kind of man is Obama to even consider such a thing?
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Obama’s reasons for attacking Syria are personal and political. It’s most likely a psychological power trip combined with a desire to distract from a growing number of unprecedented scandals and failures. He wants a distraction, and perhaps he wants to feel that he at least accomplished something.
There is no right side to take in this conflict in Syria. Evil is everywhere in this scenario. But by enabling Muslim terrorists, we’re making life easier for one of the greatest enemies the United States has ever faced.
It’s war for the hell of it, and because Obama can.
Dr Michael Hurd
Latest posts by Dr Michael Hurd (see all)
- Bill Nye: The Tyrant Guy - 2016.04.20
- Europe Sacrifices Free Speech for Political Correctness - 2016.04.10
- Bill Clinton Exposes The Hypocrisy Of “Black Lives Matter” Protestors - 2016.04.09
- Acts of War in Europe: Brussels Takes Another Hit From Radical Islam - 2016.03.22
- Trump Is Not Responsible for Violence Against Him - 2016.03.16