When the conversation is intervention in the Mideast you can bet that media sources are on the phone calling the two, old, warbirds McCain and Graham to get the Republican take on the intervention of the month. Now we have an alliance of Obama, McCain and Graham as Obama desperately gins up support of this insane intervention in Syria.
It's not like this is a new intervention, though, because we've been intervening in Syria, helping rebels with aid and weapons, for a long time -- we've done really good so far, yes? Graham, on talk shows today, acted as if this is a new intervention, and he has all kinds of ideas for Obama to entertain -- cripple Assad's delivery systems, train even more America-friendly rebels who'll definitely be on our side, hurt Assad really, really badly. Graham says that fighting Syria is like fighting Iran, and, by God, we shouldv'e been fighting Iran a long time ago.
You can tell McCain and Graham are blowing smoke by the convoluted reasoning they present to bomb Syria. I'm not an expert on foreign policy as it pertains to Mideast interventions, and McCain and Graham possess way more knowledge that I do, but I know BS when I smell it. I've studied America's long history of interventions in the Mideast, and this is one more futile, ill-designed intervention that will create unintended consequences.
Even if we could find and train a small group of America-friendly rebels, it wouldn't be long before they were fighting Assad's army plus the terrorist groups in Syria who are fighting assad's army. Even if Assad is weakened, in the chaos the terrorist oppostion forces could gain control of the chemical weapons stockpiles and use them on our loyal and friendly rebels. We'd have to have America personell on the ground, so they'd likely get attacked from all sides, too. And we know how Obama abandons our personell when they're under attack.
And even if we did weaken Assad, this wouldn't make Iran stop developing nuclear weapons -- it would create a greater sense of urgency in Iran. By America entering the civil war in Syria, this will only enhance the desire among all groups in the Mideast to resist American intervention (even after the Arab League asks us to intervene -- it's how they operate), thus undermining all the grand schemes designed by McCain, Graham and Obama. It happens every time we interfere in Mideast affairs, and it's been happening for over 200 years. You'd think we would've learned something by now.
I have to think that the push to get involved in Syria has more to do with boosting defense/deficit spending and creating a diversion from domestic problems that are making a mockery of government than it does with saving innocents from chemical weapons. If Obama had been concerned with innocent lives, he would've intervened about 90,000 innocent lives ago.