Egyptian Salafis shout slogans against Syrian President Bashar Assad as one waves a Syrian revolutionary flag during a rally after the Friday prayers at Amr Ibn Al As mosque, in Cairo, Egypt, Friday, June 14, 2013. Syrians are being killed at an average rate of 5,000 per month, the United Nation said Thursday as it raised the overall death toll in the civil war to nearly 93,000, with civilians bearing the brunt of the attacks. Credit: AP
© 2023 Blaze Media LLC. All rights reserved.
Over at NRO, Victor Davis Hanson expertly lays out the myriad of reasons why U.S. intervention in Syria would be a bad idea:
Syria is turning out to be a sort of Spanish Civil War of our age, with Hezbollah and Iran playing the role of fascist Italy and Germany, and the Islamic nations and jihadists that of Stalin’s Russia, as the moderates disappear and the messy conflict becomes a proxy war for greater powers, with worse to come.
There were always problems for the Obama administration intervening in Syria besides the usual bad/worse choices in the Middle East between authoritarianism and Islamic extremism and the president’s own preference for sonorous sermons rather than rapid action.
For all of 2012, Barack Obama ran on the theme that he had removed the last troops from Iraq and soon would do the same in Afghanistan. So a third intervention in Syria was not to be a campaign talking point, especially after Benghazi.
Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and John Kerry were all on record saying that Assad’s Syria was more or less reforming, the nuances of its newfound moderation missed by the supposedly swaggering Bush administration. Lead from behind in Libya had led to Benghazi, not an empowered Arab Spring.
The whole thing is definitely worth a read. Click here to continue...
Want to leave a tip?
We answer to you. Help keep our content free of advertisers and big tech censorship by leaving a tip today.