Skip to content

Bad Idea?

Matt Bors
© Matt Bors

I’m not sure what to think about Syria. But I pretty much have the same questions about Syria as I did about Iraq.

What is the goal of our attacking Syria? Is it to depose Assad, like we did with Saddam Hussein? If so, what happens after we do that? Do we actually have a game plan for the Middle East, and how will attacking Syria affect that?

Or is there some other reason? Is it to punish Syria for using chemical weapons? Is it so we can appear strong? Is it so Obama can be a war president and force the Party of No to shut up for a minute?

Just tell me. WTF are we trying to accomplish and how will we accomplish it?

Aren’t these reasonable questions?



  1. Hassan wrote:

    The second picture in the cartoon, “…After we make it worse, of course!”

    I think this is exactly why many Republicans are supporting it, they have immediately tagged with it military budget, and say sequester is hurting it, and they cannot do it without increasing it. So basically if they get their way, we will end up with budget which republicans wanted..

    Thursday, September 5, 2013 at 6:38 am | Permalink
  2. Hassan wrote:

    To your questions, I do not know what they are thinking, but this is a perfect trap for us (and U.S.) for next 50 years.

    There is no denying that Assad is an evil man, and there is humanitarian crisis on our hand. But we cannot act in short term that will hurt us in long term.

    Thursday, September 5, 2013 at 6:44 am | Permalink
  3. Duckman wrote:

    Very simple actually. We might care a bit about innocents being blasted by chemicals, but that is never our main reason for doing anything.

    Assad is irrelevant at this point. If he stays in power groups are going to bring havoc to the country for years to come, if he doesnt the power vacuum will bring the havoc.

    It all has to do with Iran. We have Iran surrounded by military bases, and most of the middle eastern countries are on our side when it comes to Iran. Who isnt? Syria. Who is now incapable of helping Iran? Syria

    Thursday, September 5, 2013 at 6:44 am | Permalink
  4. PatriotSGT wrote:

    Part of me says this whole thing is to make the President and US look tough. IMO it was a huge blunder for him to draw a red line, but he was campaigning and trying to look strong at the time and proabably didn’t mean it. He got 1 pass when the rebels allegedly used them about 6 months ago, not to many people died and they were of course who we were supporting. You can’t kill an ally now can you. While Bush was in office some of the same players now calling for military strikes against Assad were holding talks with him and saying he had reformist potential. What do our politicians know.
    So now the President has backed himself into a corner, has lost face with the world, is being stared down by Russia caused our best ally to shrink away to the water closet and as a last resort is trying to form a coalition with the opposition in Washington so he can pass/share the blame when things go wrong, and they will. He didn’t ask for permission for a limited engagement in Libya and we know how thats going, so why now? He needs partners to share the pending catastrophe and he found it in Kerry, Pelosi and McCain. Militarily the only thing we have to gain now is killing some Syrians and saying I meant what I said when I drew that red line so don’t do that again or we’ll be back. Assad is no dummy he’s already moved or is in the process of moving or worse for us relocating civilians into closer proximity to likely targets for the front page effect.
    The only reason Republicans will support it is while they don’t care about Obama they don’t want the US to look weak, but probably more importantly, after the Libya debacle, they smell blood in the water. I don’t know what the Dems stand to gain as it will really piss off their base, but like with many things they will be blindly obedient and follow their leaders, likely to their own demise at the next election.

    As a nation we have zero to gain by killing Syrians and we will even if Assad has to arrange it. We won’t change a thing if we don’t go all in and we won’t. So they only logical conclusion is to help the President save face. He’s already trying to back himself out saying he didn’t draw a red line, the world did (I guess he forgot we live in a digital age), but he’ll keep saying it looking weaker and more indecisive every time.

    My conclusion is we need to drop this like a hot potatoe, stick our tale bewtween our legs or spin it as a sign of strength that we can walk away from a bad decision. Drop it on the UN’s lap and let them do their job.

    Thursday, September 5, 2013 at 7:14 am | Permalink
  5. wildwood wrote:

    Gee, a choice between a tyrant who kills his own people and Muslim extremists. Talk about a rock and hard place. It’s a lose lose situation.

    Thursday, September 5, 2013 at 1:07 pm | Permalink
  6. Mike wrote:

    The only goal worth pursuing is securing or destroying the chemical weapons stocks. However, that’s not the goal, and couldn’t be if we’re not going boots on the ground. So there is no worthwhile goal, and no reason to do attack Syria.

    It appears that everyone in the administration has lost their minds, and I’m otherwise an Obama supporter.

    Thursday, September 5, 2013 at 2:19 pm | Permalink
  7. Zyvlyn wrote:

    That’s the question I keep asking myself. What is the goal of the United States in attacking Syria? If it’s to launch a few missiles at some weapons stockpiles so we can look tough and say that we stick to our word about WMDs, then that’s one thing. But if the plan is to overthrow Assad and install a new democratic regime that is friendly to the US (aka the Iraq plan) then that’s something completely different. I, too am an Obama supporter, but the way he’s been banging the war drums troubles me.

    Friday, September 6, 2013 at 5:15 am | Permalink
  8. Jonah wrote:

    Obviously the right way to handle syria would be get international cooperation and have all the major nations commit to threatening military action or some other type of strong action (i’m not sure what other action could be perceived as strong). However as it turns out everyone either has was fatigue (thanks rummy and GW) or economic issues or are afraid politically or have ulterior motives (russia).

    No easy answer here. Some of the same people who are complaining about Obama being a warmonger were also decrying the atrocities in Syria and urging something be done.What seems obvious now is that negotiations or military action are unlikely as long as countries like UK remain passive.

    To make it worse the US media has seized on the red line comment and this storyline has weakened the US leadership thereby emboldening both Syria and Russia.

    IMO Obama should have waited for the UN to release data and then demanded action. He seriously underestimated the amount of war fatigue and passiveness around the rest of the world. Hopefully the evidence is now convincing enough that all nations (except russia and china) threaten military action. Hopefully Syria backs down and negotiates some type of an agreement where Assad leaves and elections are held. Unlikely but that’s the path we should be headed towards IMO.

    Friday, September 6, 2013 at 11:13 am | Permalink
  9. PatriotSGT wrote:

    That’s a lot of Hopefully’s Jonah.
    First he can’t get his base to support this so he is hoping Republicans will bail him out. There the same people who’d love nothing more then to see him flounder and fail. He needs to lay out the plan and price in blood and treasure to the American people. Much like Bush there is no plan for what comes after “mission accomplished”. That’s the danger in this kind of stand off, he has to go by what the intelligence people are telling him and he’s wondering if they could be wrong this time like they were for Bush. From what most can see it seems evident chemical weapons were used, what’s much less evident is who used them.
    There’s an eastern coalition growing and gaining power. Russia, Iran, Syria and China sense legitimate weakness and will use it to their advantage. Snowden has weakened us so that other neutral or allied countries might say no you go it alone big boy since you were spying on us and don’t trust us. The enemies know Obama won’t risk his legacy and go it alone. This is the time where the President earns his pay.
    Is the President ready to start WWIII to prove we’re still the toughest kid on the block? If Russia, Iran and China join in the fight we are up $#@% creek. We don’t win that war without Germany, France and England and our best hope would be to fight to a draw.
    If I were a Vegas odds maker I’d say Obama blinks first and Russia, Iran and China will win the stare down. Then we’ll officially be out of the superpower business.
    What he should have done right from the get go is fly immediately to the UN and demand an emergency meeting and lay out his case, if they failed to act he could still use the go it alone route, but they would have failed first.

    Friday, September 6, 2013 at 6:56 pm | Permalink
  10. il-08 wrote:

    Patriotsgt, what a strange world you live in. I am glad here on earth we have a world based on reality. Except for fox news, of course.

    Friday, September 6, 2013 at 8:41 pm | Permalink
  11. Jay Castor wrote:

    Look at all these people in this discussion who pretend to know exactly what’s going on. The USA out of the superpower business? I don’t think so; we still have more weapons than any other country. That’s absurd, Patriot! But other than commenting on that bit of illogic, I think the smart thing to do is to act confused about what to do and thus do no harm! After all, we haven’t even gotten definitive truth about who used chemical weapons on the citizens of Syria. And why?! It’s just crazy!

    Saturday, September 7, 2013 at 5:58 am | Permalink