creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
Patrick Buchanan
Pat Buchanan
18 Apr 2014
NED's Chickens Come Home to Roost

When Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Empire an "evil empire," the phrase reflected his conviction that while … Read More.

15 Apr 2014
The End of Ideology?

On our TV talk shows and op-ed pages, and in our think tanks here, there is rising alarm over events abroad. … Read More.

11 Apr 2014
What Would Reagan Do?

President Reagan was holding a meeting in the Cabinet Room on March 25, 1985, when Press Secretary Larry … Read More.

Just Whose War Is This?

Comment

Wednesday, John Kerry told the Senate not to worry about the cost of an American war on Syria.

The Saudis and Gulf Arabs, cash-fat on the $110-a-barrel oil they sell U.S. consumers, will pick up the tab for the Tomahawk missiles.

Has it come to this — U.S. soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen as the mercenaries of sheiks, sultans and emirs, Hessians of the New World Order, hired out to do the big-time killing for Saudi and Sunni royals?

Yesterday, too, came a stunning report in the Washington Post.

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations has joined the Israeli lobby AIPAC in an all-out public campaign for a U.S. war on Syria

Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League have invoked the Holocaust, with Hier charging the U.S. and Britain failed to rescue the Jews in 1942.

Yet, if memory serves, in '42 the Brits were battling Rommel in the desert and the Americans were still collecting their dead at Pearl Harbor and dying on Bataan and Corregidor.

The Republican Jewish Coalition, too, bankrolled by Sheldon Adelson, the Macau casino mogul whose solicitude for the suffering children of Syria is the stuff of legend, is also backing Obama's war.

Adelson, who shelled out $70 million to bring down Barack, wants his pay-off — war on Syria. And he is getting it. Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor have saluted and enlisted. Sheldon, fattest of all fat cats, is buying himself a war.

Yet, is it really wise for Jewish organizations to put a Jewish stamp on a campaign to drag America into another war that a majority of their countrymen do not want to fight?

Moreover, this war has debacle written all over it. Should it come, a divided nation will be led by a diffident and dithering commander in chief who makes Adlai Stevenson look like Stonewall Jackson.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey is having trouble even defining the mission. While Obama says it will be an in-and-out strike of hours, a "shot across the bow," John McCain says the Senate resolution authorizes robust strikes, lethal aid to the rebels and a campaign to bring down Bashar Assad.

If the Republican Party backs this war, it will own this war.

And U.S. involvement will last not for days, but for the duration.

And if our power is unleashed, our prestige and superpower status go on the line.

If the rebels then lose, we lose. And if the rebels win, who wins?

Is it the same jihadists who just shelled that Christian village and terrorized that convent of Christian nuns?

Is it the same rebels seen on the front page of Thursday's New York Times about to execute, Einsatzgruppen-style, captive Syrian soldiers, forgetting only to have the victims of their war crime dig their own graves first?

Does the Republican Party really want to own a war that could end with al-Qaida in power or occupying sanctuaries in Syria?

Does the U.S. Jewish community really want to be responsible for starting a war that ends with two million Christian Syrians facing a fate not unlike that of Poland's Jews?

About the debate on this war, there is an aspect of the absurd.

We are told we must punish Assad for killing Syrians with gas, but we do not want Assad's regime to fall. Which raises a question: How many Syrians must we kill with missiles to teach Assad he cannot kill any more Syrians with gas? Artillery, fine. Just no gas.

How many Syrians must we kill to restore the credibility of our befuddled president who now says he did not draw that "red line" on chemical weapons; the world did when it outlawed such weapons.

Yet this statement may offer Obama a way out of a crisis of his own making without his starting a war to save face.

Iran and Russia agree chemical weapons were used. Vladimir Putin has said Russia will back military action against those who did it. The Russians have put out a 100-page document tracing the March use of chemical weapons to the rebels. The Turks reportedly intercepted small amounts of sarin going to the rebels. We claim solid proof that Assad's regime authorized and used chemical weapons.

Why not tell the Russians to meet us in the Security Council where we will prove our "slam-dunk" case.

If we can, and do, we will have far greater support for collective sanctions or action than we do now. And if we prove our case and the U.N. does nothing, we will have learned something about the international community worth learning.

But the idea of launching missiles based on evidence we will not reveal about Syria's use of chemical weapons, strikes that will advance the cause of the al-Qaida terrorists who killed 3,000 of us and are anxious to kill more, would be an act of such paralyzing stupidity one cannot believe that even this crowd would consciously commit it.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of "Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?" To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators webpage at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM



Comments

4 Comments | Post Comment
The one thing he said here that is noteworthy is that the evidence should be presented and debated the Security Council. Publicly.

And the entire planet should watch. All of this garbage about who is sabotaging the Security Council or who is trying to commandeer it will just melt away.

Let's just look at the data. We can rest assured we will not be subjected to that stinking kind of science fiction performance we saw from Colin Powell last time around.

Neither Putin nor Obama will be able to slink around in the shadows of speculation if that occurs. And it would sure be interesting to see who has the credible case. If the inquiry produces nothing concrete, that tells us a lot too--we should not act on a situation we just don't understand.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Masako
Thu Sep 5, 2013 6:55 PM
I must say I find it fascinating that all of the U.S. huff-puff, ala Feinstein's dishonest, political, whore-it-on nauseanata, paints this as an issue of not tolerating chemical warfare, and if you don't support U.S. intervention you are tolerating it. Putin is asking, "Who did it?"

Don't see yet much of a response to that--in fact I see a deliberate non-response to that by our phony Feinstein and her ilk, and Putin has some compelling points, as does Buchyballs here, like why in the world would Assad blow his lead now by using chemical weapons when he was ahead and gaining, and had no need to deploy them?

If it was Assad's move, the question why would he do it is kind of like the question why would Hitler open a second front in World War Two, pretty much turning certain victory into certain defeat, when he had a peace pact with Russia and had no need to worry about the eastern flank.

Hitler was nuts. Don't know if Assad is or not, but if he's not, Putin and Buchanan raise a good point. And there has been pretty much a vacuous response, as the drumbeat of war pounds on.

Sorry to say it, but Putin's constant reminders of Iraq seem still to be quite relevant. And sorry to see that scary brute looking better and smarter than our prez and his dopey minions.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Masako
Thu Sep 5, 2013 7:28 PM
The reason the USA is so generally despised in the non-oil producing Islamic countries is that when a predator drone or Apache attack helicopter shows up outside your window in those regions, it doesn't mean democracy has come to set you free, it means you're dead.
"Wednesday, John Kerry told the Senate not to worry about the cost of an American war on Syria."
But what about the Cost to America's soul?
Iraq war casualties = 1,033,000 deaths (Opinion Research Business survey)
Syria war casualties = To be determined
Iran war casualties = To be determined

God help us if there is such a thing as Karma
Comment: #3
Posted by: Soothsayer
Sat Sep 7, 2013 12:09 PM
Re: Soothsayer. There is such a thing as karma, and God can't really help us with that.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Masako
Sun Sep 8, 2013 4:21 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Pat Buchanan
Apr. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
30 31 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Authorís Podcast
Mark Levy
Mark LevyUpdated 19 Apr 2014
David Harsanyi
David HarsanyiUpdated 18 Apr 2014
David Limbaugh
David LimbaughUpdated 18 Apr 2014

14 Mar 2008 Playing by Obama's Rules

17 Oct 2008 The Coming Backlash

5 Oct 2007 A New "New Majority" for GOP?