The War Nobody Wants

Nobody wants to wag this dog … U.S. President Barack Obama – eager to deflect attention from a host of major scandals and a worsening economy – has joined fiscally liberal “neocons” like U.S. Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham in banging the war drum against Syria. The only problem?…

Nobody wants to wag this dog …

U.S. President Barack Obama – eager to deflect attention from a host of major scandals and a worsening economy – has joined fiscally liberal “neocons” like U.S. Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham in banging the war drum against Syria.

The only problem? The American people are adamantly opposed to this warmongering. As is a huge chunk of the U.S. Congress – which oh by the way is the branch of government which has been endowed with the authority to declare war.

The latest blow to befall Obama and his allies? A stunning vote by Great Britian’s parliament against intervening in Syria – which deprives America of one of its most steadfast global allies.

Nonetheless, Obama’s team is pressing forward with its plans for an attack … with “senior White House officials” telling NBC News the administration is prepared to “go it alone.”

Great …

We’ve repeatedly expressed our objection to American intervention in Syria (herehere and here) – arguing it serves no compelling American interest and will only make our citizens less safe by needlessly  anti-American extremism (justifiably, we might add).

For the first time in a long time, that’s a popularly held notion … both at home and abroad. Unfortunately, the Obama administration isn’t listening.

Make no mistake: Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is a butcher. But so are his enemies – a list which includes radical al-Qaeda fighters committing all sorts of atrocities against Christians in Syria.

All of that death and destruction is terrible … but it’s simply not America’s problem. Just as the violence taking place in Egypt is not America’s problem.

Alas, though, the war gods are strong … 

Related posts

US & World

Amanda Cunningham: The Reach For Freedom

Amanda Cunningham

Letter: About That Semiconductor Guest Column …


Joe Biden Dials It Back In Ukraine

Will Folks


Smirks August 30, 2013 at 11:49 am

The War Nobody Wants? Which one?

? August 30, 2013 at 11:50 am

“And at this point it is abundantly clear his regime has used chemical weapons on its enemies”

lol….really? The key piece of information for “proof” being a phone called intercepted by the Israeli’s

Do you not want to wonder if there’s even a small possibility of it all being bullshit? Doesn’t everyone remember how “sure” Bush was about WMD?

Is everyone’s memory so short that they don’t recall Colin Powell making a big bullshit presentation to the UN over Iraq and how “sure” we all were?

Hell, it ended his career eventually. It even killed any chance he had for running for President.

Is it really much of a stretch to think that the rebels, who have been trying to draw us in to the war for some time now…who have committed acts that include beheading priests and opening the cadaver of an enemy and eating his internal organs for everyone to see(via internet posting) wouldn’t stoop to a small chemical attack on their own populace to “win” this civil war?

The pols here play the American populace for the fools they are. In the UK, our lap poodle Cameron couldn’t overcome the 89% of the population that was against bombing Syria. It’s an interesting state of affairs when the modern world’s most prolific empire in recent times has a population rejecting war en masse to such a degree that you can’t find 2 of 10 people supporting it.

Anyone wanna take bets how many people here would support a Syria bombing? Give the DC propaganda machine some time….I’ll bet they can get close to 50% when it’s all said and done.

The Colonel August 30, 2013 at 1:46 pm

A little history – we know Sadam Hussein had chemical weapons because he used them against Iran and the Kurds. We also have good reason that his weapons and tooling went to Syria’s Beqaa Valley. We now have very good reason to believe that chemical weapons were used by Asaad against his own people. Why? Because we have the bodies and the chemical evidence (released hours ago).
Bush had evidence but no bodies. Obama has evidence, bodies but no moral center. I was in Jordan two days ago, there are already 100,000 Syrian refugees there and they’re preparing for twice that.
Should we go into Syria with M-1s blazing? Emphatically NO! Should we randomly fire tomahawks or Hellfires? Again, emphatically NO! There are people dying and being killed all over Africa and the rest of the world, we can’t be “World Police, Team USA” but don’t alllow that rational assessment to force you into irrational assessments of why we should or shouldn’t take action here. Assad has the weapons, has used the weapons and may well decide to do it again. As long as he’s killing his own folks, so be it – but should he overreach and launch a missile into Israel or Jordan, World War II may look civilized by comparison…

? August 30, 2013 at 2:06 pm


I appreciate your commentary, but let us revisit the WMD claims, per wiki(referenced):

“Later U.S.-led inspections agreed that Iraq had earlier abandoned its WMD programs, but asserted Iraq had an intention to pursue those programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted.[16]

Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was “the intelligence failure” in Iraq,[17] while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration “misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq”.[18] A key CIA informant in Iraq admitted that he lied about his allegations, “then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war”.[19]”

You have both Bush and our inspection team confirming the blunder.

Bodies and the presence of chemical weapons still does not equate to “proof” that Assad was responsible, as I outlined above.

I do not think my assessment is “irrational”, I think it is simply a possible scenario with the information we currently have.

That is my point with the whole “WMD” issue, we leapt into a war without the correct intelligence information and in fact used false information to justify it.

That is not in question, correct?

Assuming the answer is “yes” to that, then what else is there to say about how that relates to this situation in similar fashion?

Assad is certainly not a mad dog, or the whole region would have already erupted.

As you say, I’m reading now that most high level military brass are NOT wanting a strike on Syria….

The Colonel August 30, 2013 at 2:43 pm

I agree that Iraq was probably our biggest “non-conspiracy theory” intelligence failure (and a genuine pain in the ass from my personal experience). I hope we avoid throwing down on Syria, we’re still fighting one war too many at this point. Having met and spoken with many of those “high level military brass” over the last several days, I can, without giving away any secrets, personally confirm that the last thing any of us want is a strike on Syria without a much better task/purpose and a worthwhile “end game”. Right now, no one can provide the “in order to” justification for launching the first shell/missile/rocket into Syria.
Bombing the “aspirin factory” a la Bill Clinton won’t resolve this problem

? August 30, 2013 at 4:53 pm

I hope your travels are safe.

Let me test you for a moment on “non-conspiracy theory” surrounding intelligence and war.

What do you think of McNamara’s admission about the Gulf of Tonkin?

Would you admit a “conspiracy” to get the US into Vietnam as a result?

The Colonel August 30, 2013 at 5:55 pm

We were already in Vietnam when Tonkin occurred (there were two “Tonkins” by the way, a legitimate battle that occurred on August 2nd where the USS Maddox was fired upon by three NV Navy torpedo boats and the mythical battle on August 4th where the Maddox and USS Turner Joy blew holes in the darkness after claiming to be under attack). The first two Americans killed in ground combat in Vietnam were Maj. Dale R. Ruis and Master Sgt. Chester M. Ovnand . They were killed in July of 1959.
Tonkin was not an “intelligence failure” though there are parallels to the Iraq war – a potential legitimate threat was hyped far beyond what it really was.
By “conspiracy theory” intelligence failures I’m referring to the disproven allegation that FDR knew the Japanese were going to attack or the idea that the Lusitania was intended to be a provocation blah, blah, blah.

? August 31, 2013 at 10:30 am

“We were already in Vietnam when Tonkin occurred (there were two “Tonkins” by the way”

Yea, but it was 2nd fake attack is what pushed everything into overdrive and ultimately gave Johnson the authority to conduct military operations without declaring war.

Same ol' Same ol' August 30, 2013 at 3:29 pm

You tell the big lie enough, it soon becomes the truth.

MSM is pumping this shit hard.

You really have to wonder, who benefits from this? Is this just a stepping stone to Iran?

? August 30, 2013 at 4:00 pm

There’s always the MIC benefactors…Eisenhower warned us….of course there’s Smedly Butler too who would probably point a finger at big oil.(for ‘stability’ reasons)

Centrist View August 30, 2013 at 12:00 pm

Google search terms: syria chemical weapons no slam dunk

lawzoo August 30, 2013 at 12:13 pm

One more time….the U.S. should stay out. There are no allies in this travesty …only criminal acts on both sides.

Yes there is a human rights interest but not one that can be achieved even with …God forbid…”boots on the ground”.

Stay the hell out !

GoCocks August 30, 2013 at 12:56 pm

I am neither for or against intervention at this point. As others have pointed out, there are an awful lot of costs to go along with any benefit. However, stating that it is “simply not America’s problem” disturbs me. If a woman starts beating her child at the playground where you are walking your dog, do you have no responsibility to intervene? If a man starts beating his wife in the house behind yours, do you have no responsibility to intervene? At some point, being a real man or real woman requires that you draw a line in the sand and step up. Are we at that point with the Assad regime? Maybe yes, maybe no. However, at some point, what goes on in Syria should become our business even if there is no oil, no strategic port, or no direct threat to an ally.

? August 30, 2013 at 1:17 pm

Your viewpoint naturally leads to justification for intervention in all things.

Also, interference with a women beating her child isn’t really a applicable comparison.

First, to get closer in comparison you’d have to convince everyone in the neighborhood that she was excessively beating her child(say, beyond spanking for example), then you’d have to get everyone to agree that it was worth some amount, say $5 each, to pay for you or someone else to stop them from beating their child.

Even after all of that, you’d have to also assume that she may carry a gun and object to you stopping her from beating her child…meaning you or the interfering party could get killed.

Now you get closer….but still not quite there.

The final factor would have to be that the child might have done something heinous to warrant his/her beating, for example…killing his sibling by cutting off his head or eating his entrails.

Now you are much closer to the circumstances comparison wise.

You are welcome.

Torch August 30, 2013 at 12:58 pm

I think the last time we declared war was WW II. Need to change that.

Tunes'n'news August 30, 2013 at 1:39 pm

Our Nobel Peace Prize winning leader is going to go it alone, against the Constitution, in the middle of what is really just a small skirmish in century 14 of the endless Sunni-Shia war, on the side of those that attacked the U.S. on 9/11, because he doesn’t like the style of fighting that Iran’s friends used, assuming it was actually Iran’s friends.

Sounds legit.

shifty henry August 30, 2013 at 2:47 pm

Barry likes the smell of his own farts, and now he has Kerry liking them….

Halfvast Conspirator August 30, 2013 at 1:48 pm

I say we take off and nuke the whole place from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.

huh August 30, 2013 at 2:21 pm

Why should we intervene in a bloody civil war? What is our military objective? What is our political objective? Can we achieve these objectives? Do we have money to achieve these objectives?

shifty henry August 30, 2013 at 2:48 pm

Barry: ” I had a dream ……. “

GreenvilleGirl August 30, 2013 at 4:42 pm

Other than the already established military bases and embassies we have spread all over the world, we have no business trying to save the world. I’m sorry people are dying in the Mid Eastern countries, but there are other places were people are dying in civil wars.

We need to secure our borders with our military, get out of Afghanistan and Iraq, and maintain good relations with our allies. I don’t believe anything that comes out of Obama’s mouth — he’s just the puppet of the DNC and of the idiots who paid $millions to buy the office for him.

Our concentration needs to be on protecting our country, our military bases and embassies, and make sure that we have the technology and protection in the air to prevent any attacks by our enemies.

Unfortunately, we cannot save the world; we need to concentrate on saving our own country and not attempting to conquer the world.

shifty henry August 30, 2013 at 6:03 pm

—- Barry is also the mouthpiece of the Cockroach Brigade

shifty henry August 30, 2013 at 6:35 pm

Barry: “I had a dream — mother of mercy, is this the end of Rico?”

shifty henry August 30, 2013 at 8:07 pm

But, wait — what does Senator Graham say about all of this?

Paul Baumer August 30, 2013 at 8:21 pm

all quiet on the western front

F-U-C-K, war is good for us September 2, 2013 at 2:26 pm

no, no, no. John McCain’s a conservative republican war hero, so we should follow his advise and jump in with both hands and feet. Kill those fucking arabs.
That’s what George W. did, and he was a conservative genius, and he got reelected. And he got his advise from conservative geniuses Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz.
War’s good for the economy, Will, what the hell’s wrong with you?


Leave a Comment