When the Rwandan government slaughtered more than 800,000 Rwandans over a 100-day period in 1994, America did nothing.
This was a genocide we actually could have stopped without much trouble.
When Pol Pot killed off one quarter of Cambodia’s population (about 2,000,000 people) in the mid 1970s, America also did nothing.
Actually, we were there when Pol Pot launched his slaughter of Cambodians, but we left.
We knew for certain that the Vietnamese Communists would slaughter hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese if we left Vietnam, but we left anyway.
Cambodia under Pol Pot in 1976
So then why is the Assad regime’s alleged killing of an estimated 1,400 Syrians with chemical weapons so shocking that, apparently, we must launch a military strike against Assad?
Why is the alleged behavior of the Assad regime so much worse than what happens everyday in North Korea?
Is the Assad regime thuggish?
Of course it is — but no more so than the Iranian regime, or dozens of other regimes in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia.
When compared to other examples of genocide and mass-slaughters of people by their own government, Assad is pretty small potatoes.
Why the selective moral outrage?
More than 14,000 Americans are murdered here every year — ten times the number of Syrians the Assad regime allegedly killed.
But we’re not hearing the same level of moral outrage from Obama over this.
14,000 murders inside the United States every year, apparently, is NOT a crisis. But 1,400 dead Syrians is an international crisis that justifies war.
I don’t get it.
Perhaps there’s another reason for military action other than the 1,400 dead Syrians — because this rationale for war (as argued by Obama) makes no sense at all.
Is there a strategic reason to get rid of Assad? Would this be in the interest of the United States?
It might if we knew Assad’s replacement would be an ally of the United States — or, at least not an enemy.
But every indication is the replacement would be Islamic fanatics allied with al Qaeda.
This is what happens when we get regime change in Middle Eastern countries these days. The corrupt, brutal thug is replaced by America-hating jihadists.
I find myself in rare agreement with the leftist former Congressman Dennis Kucinich who says the Obama Administration has become al Qaeda’s air force in the Middle East.
Obama didn’t like Egypt’s strongman ruler Hosni Mubarak — who was certainly a thug, but an ally of the United States. He also promised not to attack Israel. But Obama pulled the rug out from under Mubarak so he could be replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood.
We have now learned that the Iraq War was one big mistake.
Yes, Saddam Hussein was bad, terrible, brutal and all that. But he was a counter to the even worse and more dangerous Iran — which is why Ronald Reagan supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam also hated the fanatic Islamic groups, which is why he used mustard gas to kill off many of them.
As a result of toppling Saddam, Iraq will likely soon disintegrate into chaos — and ultimately be overrun by jihadists who hate America.
This will certainly also happen in Syria if we replace Assad.
It seems the very best we can hope for in the Middle East is countries run by authoritarian strongmen (in the mold of a Shah of Iran, a Hosni Mubarak, or even a Saddam Hussein) who certainly are brutal, but who at least keep al Qaeda and the America-hating jihadists from coming to power.
Obama says Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his own people poses a national security threat to the United States.
What type of chemical weapons are these? Very-strong bleach?
We aren’t told.
Assad, by the way, claims his regime did not kill those people — that they were killed by the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated rebels in a “False Flag” attack — as a tactic by the rebels to bring the Western world’s wrath down on Assad.
Killing a lot of innocent people and blaming it on the enemy is part of the al Qaeda playbook. There appears to be some evidence supporting this possibility here. It’s a civil war. Anything is possible.
Russia has been emphatic in saying we don’t have the evidence that Assad used these chemical weapons. Not that we need to take Putin’s word for anything. But Russia did warn us accurately in advance about the Boston Marathon bombers.
So the case against Assad on this is far from unanimous.
But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the Obama Administration is correct on this, that Assad killed the 1,400 with some kind of gas — perhaps sarin or mustard gas.
Obama says the purpose of military action against Assad is NOT for the purpose of causing regime change.
Then what is the purpose of military action? To deliver an extra firm spanking?
How many innocent Syrians will die as a result of this U.S. military strike?
Most likely, more than the 1,400 Syrians Assad allegedly killed.
Will killing a lot more Syrians make America a hero to Syrians?
I suspect not.
Does a U.S. military strike on Syria make any sense at all on any level?
The British Parliament thinks not, which is why it voted against joining Obama on this Syria project.
Syria is basically a Third World country — presents no military threat to the U.S. whatsoever.
When deciding whether or not to go to war, whether or not to replace a regime we don’t like, the rule should first be: Let’s make sure we’re not making the situation worse.
We have a habit lately of constantly making bad situations even worse.
America today is the most hated country in the world . . . because we are seen as the world’s most annoying busybody.
There are no good options in the Middle East. There are no good guys to support. The entire region is a cesspool.
We really need to start thinking about getting completely out of the Middle East. Just leave that Hell Hole alone.
Things are not going so well right here in America. The economy is a shambles. We’ve run up a $17 TRILLION national debt, with trillion-dollar yearly deficits as far as the eye can see.
We really need to focus on fixing our problems here at home instead of continuing to try to fix an unfixable Middle East.