Skip to content

On Topic Of: Syria, Topic Tomorrow Of Presidential Address

September 9, 2013

Tomorrow night, the President will address the public about the need to use limited force against Syrian targets.  But really, ever since the latest (alleged) revelation of Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his own people, killing 1400, I’ve been conflicted on whether or not America should intervene militarily.  I’m sure some of you have been too.

And like you, I have an opinion.

The short question:

Should the U.S. strike Syria?

My answer…begrudgingly…is yes.  Now I say this is as a bleeding heart liberal.  I detest and despise war.  I think ANY death is waste of human life.  But I also think weapons like Sarin are unforgivable to use and that the United States should strike to “degrade” capability to use those weapons and “deter” Assad from doing it again.

Folks say,

What about the genocide in Sudan and Rwanda?

(Credit: Wikimedia)

(Credit: Wikimedia)

Both are tragedies.  However, neither involved the use of horrific weapons of mass destruction and the use of those weapons cannot be allowed!  This message isn’t just for Syria.  It’s also for Hezbollah, Iran, North Korea, even Pakistan and Israel!  Bottom line, in my opinion: NO country should be allowed to use these weapons…especially on civilian populations.

Some liberals (and conservatives) are now saying,

The Russians have offered to intervene and round up Syria’s chemical weapons.  Can’t we wait and see if that works?

Umm…no.  The Russian’s have done nothing to stop Assad so far, have been a denier of Syria’s CW use, and an unreliable partner in the U.N. and in the region.

I’ve also heard,

We will likely kill civilians.

Will we?  Here’s a map of Syria and various potential targets.

(Credit: BBC News)

(Credit: BBC News)

Some of these targets are military installations like air bases.  That seems like a logical target – no reason why civilians would be living there.  And missile sites – if they’re mobile, don’t you think we have the technology to strike when they’re in transit?  On a highway, perhaps?  I think we can avoid civilian casualties, especially if we only strike a static target like an air base.

And here’s a gem from party of “no”,

We can’t afford it

I’m paraphrasing, of course.  But Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) did suggest the President should “…choose between funding Obamacare [or]and funding a war in Syria”.  A Tomahawk missile costs $1.4 mil…relatively inexpensive.  Launch 50 and you’re on the hook for $70 mil.  Passage of The Repeal Big Oil Subsidies Act would have allowed us like 1700 Tomahawks (said sarcastically).  Spare me your feigned, fiscal concern Rep. Jordan.

Look, I know this is a much more complex issue than what I’ve outlined here and that there are tons of other variables.  Will the House pass a measure authorizing force?  If they DO, will the President strike? Some say he won’t.  If the House DOESN’T pass authorization, will the President strike anyway? (I think so)  And if he DOES then strike without Congress’ approval, will they move to impeach? (they seem to be on that kick these days…anything to keep from creating jobs).  For an interesting take on President Obama’s strategy, check out FreakOutNation’s article on this subject.  It’s a good read.

I think there are many, many implications of tomorrow’s address and Congress’ vote.  But no matter, what, I will still support the President and support the further restriction on the use of chemical weapons.


From → Politics

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Young Progressive Voices

A new generation of progressive thought. Another generation of liberal politics.

%d bloggers like this: