Obama’s Syrian challenge: Avoiding total loss of America’s ability to lead

Obama’s Syrian challenge: Avoiding total loss of America’s ability to lead

In the annals of dishonest Washington debates, the question of whether to strike the Syrian regime of Bashar Assad in retaliation for the use of chemical weapons is notable for its breathtaking incoherence.

Nor is this dubious distinction confined to one side of the aisle; both Democrats and Republicans have resorted to distortions and lies to further their cases for and against a limited intervention of the kind proposed by President Barack Obama.

Among those against the notion of any intervention in Syria, there have been a variety of rationales articulated.

Among them, a U.S. missile strike against Syrian chemical weapons related targets will ignite a larger war in the Middle East; intervention will inevitably involve the commitment of ground troops; chemical weapons were not used by Assad’s forces but by the rebels; and most credibly, we have no dog in this fight. Only this last argument carries water.

Continue reading →


Commenting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

You may use HTML in your comments. Feel free to review the full list of allowed HTML here.

Facebook Comments

Disqus Comments