Apparently.. most of us watched as CNN replayed the McCain speech in the house where he called upon the US government to intervene in Syria and stage airstrikes.....I however, do not agree with him considering the 'untimely' situation of Iran's heat raising and Netanyahu's visit and comments of Israel having the right to safe guard and protect herself....This is too much for Obama, I should say.....
What do you think of McCain's airstrike plea????
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm personally not averse to airstrikes IF some international backup diplomatically can be arranged. In Libya this was provided by NATO; in Syria the UN has been stymied by vetoes in the Security Council by Russia and China. Who'd serve in this capacity in Syria? The Arab League? NATO? This is a problem. So too is the fact that the opposition to al Assad is so fragmented and far from unified. Hillary seems open to the idea of providing weapons, but this alone is problematic when there is no single site like Benghazi in Libya where the opposition can congregate. Hom has been basically leveled by the pro-Assad security forces, chasing out the rebels from forming a stronghold there. The US, in my opinion, is wise to back pro-democracy forces in Arab countries, especially ones like Syria. On the other hand, what would be the effects of such action on Saudi Arabia, a "good dictatorship" because they supply our oil (as well as most of the terrorists for 9/11)? But is it moral to stand by and watch thousands of innocent civilians murdered by Bashir al-Assad when we have the means to alter realities on the ground?
ReplyDeleteYour last bit DT reminds me of Bacevich's note in chapter 1 where he notes that bending the arc of history assumes not only the possession of great power, but also a willingness to expand that power so as to ensure the accomplishment of history's purposes. Yes, America has the means to alter realities on ground, water and air with its military might and finances but at what cost is the US willing to offer that 'help?' At the cost of her middle eastern allies like Saudi Arabia? or another costly foreign conflict? Can Obama handle that now?
ReplyDeleteThe link to the speech by McCain...http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mccain-calls-for-air-strikes-in-syria-120/2012/03/05/gIQAiOuBtR_video.html
ReplyDeleteLeon Panetta put the kabosh on unilateral military action today before the Senate Armed Services Committee. A prudent sense of caution; but the devastating loss of human life is hard to take.
ReplyDeletevery much so, there will always be human collateral. So, there was in Libya, Iraq to cite but a few and Syria is no exception if Bashir does not end this madness soon. In other news, Iran's Ayatollah praises Obama's remarks on Iran calling it a 'wise call.' And meanwhile, Israel gives time frame for Iran attack? What if an Iran attack in the guise of nuclear weapons is a false alarm as was the case of Saddam in Iraq?
DeleteI also agree with DT that if we are to go in that we should definitely not go in alone. I think Americans and the rest of the world are tired of us intervening at every turn. But if it is a united front than the responsibility will be spread out among more than one nation.
ReplyDeleteWell said Elise, am sure the world is tired of the USA trying to play big brother and intervene everywhere. But if it were a collective effort, say all the big powers unite sort of effort plus NATO maybe...
Delete