Dakota Beacon

I have some questions leading up to the US involvement in the next Middle  East war. There are a lot of good questions but few good answers.  Yes, war. The first time a US aircraft goes down over Syria and personnel  must be rescued or some Jihadist attacks one of our ships, Syria becomes a  ground war.
 

There is more to a military strike against Syria than "punishing" Bashar  Assad for employing chemical weapons against his own citizens. (Weapons of  mass destruction anyone? I wonder where Assad got the chemical weapons and  delivery systems?)
 

A sound and coherent Middle East foreign policy, which the US doesn't have,  would typically be reinforced by a credible military policy, of which ours  is woefully inadequate. We have inept foreign policy resulting from inept  political leadership. Without a discernible Middle East policy, no clear and
 credible military policy is possible.

What is our national interest in Syria? Has anyone clearly outlined our  foreign policy which supports our clearly stated national interest?   What has the US recent involvement in the Middle East achieved? Where are  our friends? Where is our influence? What have our arms deals and foreign  aid produced? In Iraq? In Turkey? In Afghanistan? In Pakistan? Egypt? Libya?  If we launch a missile attack, how much collateral damage and misery will  the US add to what Assad has already inflicted on his people?
 If we remove the Assad regime, who takes over? Al Qaeda? Hamas? Hezbollah?  The Muslim Brotherhood?

 If we attack Syria, and Assad remains in power, Russia will surely rebuild  Syria's infrastructure. Russia still retains a naval base at Tartus, a  holdover from the Cold War years and the old Soviet Union. Tartus can handle  medium size ship and that is how Russia supplies Syria.   A missile attack of limited duration focusing on Syrian military  infrastructure but excluding chemical targets (risk of contamination)
 resembles more of a terrorist attack conducted by the United States than a  legitimate, coordinated military operation. This just to "punish" Assad for  offending President Obama's sensibilities. Our military has more honor than  to serve as Obama's Praetorian Guard to sustain his credibility.   Obama has demonstrated ambivalence in handling Hillary's hypothetical 3:00  a.m. phone call. He also demonstrated ineptness by telegraphing what and  where his missile attack would occur. In the end, delay, delay, delay does  not constitute conviction.
 

The killing of women and children, and men, is heinous and criminal, but it  is not sufficient justification for the US to act unilaterally without UN,  allied or congressional support. Hundreds of thousands have been killed in  genocide in Darfur, Congo, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq. In each case the US  either could not, or would not, curtail the killing. Policing the world by  ourselves takes much more human and financial capital than the US can  afford. Sequestration does not help.

 The Syrian situation illustrates the deficiency of international leadership  the US offers the world with an unvetted president like Obama. Charles  Krauthammer aptly refers to Obama's decision making process leading to a  potential strike on Syria as "amateur hour." Indeed, the Obama  administration rendered the US an international laughingstock unworthy of  respect.

 The US should not attack Syria. Let Allah sort it out.
 
 Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or
 bnt@midstatetel.com.