This Stinks To High Heaven.

by Daniel Russ on September 10, 2013






First of all, no one here really knows what is going on over there.




Let’s begin this by admitting that Americans are about the least informed and the most misinformed citizens in the industrialized world. Most Americans couldn’t find Syria on a map with two hands and a flashlight. Most of us couldn’t name the opposition leaders or affiliated groups involved or have even a basic understanding of their basic beliefs. Most of us couldn’t articulate any of their credos or political stances, yet the mainstream news outlets and the Obama Administration are making a case that we lob munitions into these piles of kindling.


This is a complex civil war that grew out of a protest against the corruption and cronyism of the Assad regime. It was once also a jobs protest. It morphed into something that can’t be articulated in a few sound bytes. And so that alone is a reason to stay out of a fight even if we are the biggest dog in the fight.




We’ve heard all this before.



Remember the case for Saddam’s possession of WMDs and the notion that Al Qaeda and the Baath party were colluding to spread NUKES and chemical weapons to terrorist groups. Remember when Al Qaeda brought the Twin Towers down?


I guess the “media” in America forgot that just a few years ago we lived through one of these CNN – FOX – ABC – NYT – WHITE HOUSE  “good lord we have to attack them now” offensives. The New York Times is equivocating already. The bodies of these dead children are flashing up on CNN faster than Kim Kardashian’s ass and frankly it’s still a hard sell. The mainstream US press, the Pentagon, and the White House that made the fraudulent claims previously have no real credibility with a war weary country.  But we should have learned that it doesn’t matter if most of the public is against the war.



It won’t stop Assad.



Will a cruise missile or air strike do anything to the Assad government other than kill people and destroy real estate? Suppose we know where the chemical weapons are. Suppose we know where the Syrian command posts are. Then what? If we hit them will this force Assad to curtail the use of chemical weapons? Politically, if we hit the Syrians and they use chemical weapons again, then it’ll humiliate Obama. When Clinton decided to stop the Serbians from scorched earth war in the Balkans, he ordered a bombing campaign that enjoyed NATO support. It was 78 days before the Serbians retreated.



The Syrians are not helpless.


Are we to assume that the Syrians or the Russians will sit idly by? We believe that the Syrians have a secure fiber optic air defense system and they have the S-300 missile, which could sink a large US Navy vessel. We have military assets in striking distance of Syrian forces. Assad could easily draw us into another war we can’t afford.




They might hit back in other less obvious ways.


Are we to assume that Syria and its allies wouldn’t set Israel afire if we knock over a couple of Alawite palaces?


The Syrians also have Russian Naval vessels patrolling their waters. What if they hit back?


The Syrians are famous for ringing their defenses with innocent people. What happens to us when  we start seeing dead children that we killed?



Are chemical weapons really a worse death than say artillery?



Artillery kills in two ways. First, it sends white hot shrapnel whirling fragments out in all directions at the speed of sound. Second, it creates a compression wave that crushes you. Say you’re 100 yards away from an artillery strike and survive the compression wave, but a hot shard of steel spins through the air, and cuts your leg off and puts you in shock while you bleed out, is that a better death than suffocation in a chemical attack?  Is the explosive fuel that expands out from a blast and burns people in the vicinity to varying degrees of Hell, is that a better way to die than to suffocate? All of war is suffering death. Why do we ignore the deaths of those who fall by millions of bullets but run to arm over another form of murder? So while Assad kills tens of thousands of people with artillery and bullets we pay no attention, but this other weapon requires that we interlope with the business end of cruise missile strikes. Makes perfect sense.




Where does the money for this come from?



Why does the President feel a deep obligation to spend a billion dollars attacking a Mideast nation when he can’t keep the sequestration from hobbling thousands of Americans and defunding programs we all need?  If we’re broke when it comes to schools and medicine, where is the money coming from to make more warfare? The worst part of this is the feckless mainstream media that hasn’t asked this a single time.




We have enough enemies already.



We create enemies everyday with drone strikes. How many more enemies will we create with this? If we really acted in Israel’s best interests, we would be negotiating peace treaties, not rattling sabers. We have attacked four Arab countries in just the last decade. Isn’t that enough? Has any of it made any of the Mideast less violent? There are bombings ripping through Kabul and Baghdad every week; the ethnic cleansing that mundified neighborhoods of their diverse compositions has worsened both countries, and the numbers of refugees who are still living in abject poverty is still high.



What could go wrong? Everything.



What if a pilot is shot down and paraded through the streets? What if Israel gets involved? What if Iran gets involved? What if a missile strikes a target surrounded by innocents? What if they keep using chemical weapons? Then we’ll have to up the stakes and we’ll be stuck in another protracted bloody war that we have no money for. Then again there is completely unpredictable consequences, wildly volatile economic markets might collapse the tightly woven world economy.



There are leaders abusing their own people all over the globe. Lots of them we do business with daily.



Aleksandr Lukashenka of Belarus, King Mswati III of Swaziland; King Abdullah Bin Abdul-Aziz of Saudi Arabia; Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan; Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia; Gurbanguly Berdymuhammedov of Turkmenistan; and Idriss Derby of Chad; Paul Biya of Cameroon; Teodoro Obiange Nguema of Equatorial Guinea.

These people have tortured, murdered and abused people and stolen goods and traded in drugs and arms, but western countries have turned a blinded eye because they are strategic to US industry or our abilities to project force in some way.

Most Americans when polled want no part in this.


It will create more refugees.


Most of us have never seen our homes destroyed in a civil war. Most of us have no idea what it would be like to have to pack your most precious belongings and schlep out of town, babies in tow, looking for a place to live and uncertain about the next meal. But refugees suffer when our bomb hit their neighborhoods. It’s something we don’t need to exacerbate.



Obama has to chart his own course.



The Constitution says that only Congress can declare war. So putting the onus on this corrupt institution is just political theater; particularly when you consider that heavy aircraft carriers are already in place. It looks like Obama is ready to act with or without Congress. He is being played like a violin and being put into a position where there is no good outcome. Perhaps he thinks military action is away to build a shred of any lasting legacy after his pusillanimous second term. I cannot remember the last time I saw a President shoot himself in both feet like this. Well, yes I can. When we invaded Iraq for a second time, I saw that it would go nowhere and I was right.






Related Posts:

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: