Obama’s Policy On Syria Is Shaping Up To Be Replica Of Bush’s Iraq
Just as President Bush used the threat of weapons of mass destruction to gather support for an invasion of Iraq, President Obama is using the threat of chemical weapons to rally support for intervention in Syria.
There’s been a lot in the news about Syria and President Obama’s stance on the policies that the United States may enact to counter the newest bout of unrest in the Middle East. However, if you have been following the sound bites and press releases coming from the White House, you may notice something familiar about how Obama intends to handle the situation. In fact, you might find yourself thinking that his plan sounds a lot like President Bush’s plan for Iraq after the September 11 attacks.
It was only a few months ago when President Obama claimed that, should Assad utilize chemical weapons against his people, a ‘red line’ would be crossed that would result in U.S. intervention. Unfortunately, since Obama made that claim, evidence has arisen to suggest that the “red line” was indeed crossed when Assad allegedly approved the use of such weapons on opposition fighters, killing nearly 150.
In response, President Obama now wants to aid the Syrian rebels by supplying arms and possibly setting up a no-fly zone over Syria. And just like President Bush did with Iraq, “the Obama administration will fix the intelligence and facts so it can justify an already determined policy” (RT.com).
Plain and simple, the Obama administration is going to pursue Syrian intervention no matter what the public says and no matter how much it costs. Which raises another issue: how much would it cost for the United States to intervene in Syria?
It’s no secret that the United States is broke. We lack the financial strength to continue serving as global cops. So how in the world does our government plan on paying for another Middle Eastern war that has the potential of hurling the U.S. into economic catastrophe as former President Bush’s Iraq War did? We’re still paying for the Iraq War, and will be for a long time to come!
Have we learned nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan? It is pure madness to spend another trillion or two after what has been wasted in those two countries. We can no longer be the world’s policeman when the problems facing us are so critical. Our economy is already in the sewer — our unemployment remains alarmingly high, we have skyrocketing trade deficits and national debt, and many of our industries are suffering. Congress is already bogged down with immigration reform and the impending student loan interest rate increases. Now is not the time for President Obama to tie the U.S. up in another messy intervention.
America should not intervene in Syria. We must not spend money we don’t have on causes that don’t involve substantial American interests. America simply does not have the resources to enforce peace in every conflict in the world, particularly in a part of the world where people do not fully appreciate our sacrifice of blood.
The United States has always been, and will always be, an ally of freedom. But we must put America’s future and the future of our children and grandchildren first.