Three Dangerous Senators
President Obama’s legacy, at least at this point, may have less to do with the miserable economy and intolerable high rate of unemployment than with how he’s used the military to great disadvantage to both this and other nations. Start with a look at the so-called Arab Spring uprisings in the Middle East in mostly 2011, including North Africa. Obama announced to the world that leaders such as Libya’s Qaddafi, Egypt’s Mubarak, Yemen’s Saleh and Syria’s Assad just had to go, with the clear implication that the U.S. would see that insurgents would get this country’s help, especially militarily.
Aiding and abetting Obama were the senators, who were gung-ho for his rape of Libya. One remembers McCain in the Benghazi area lobbying for weapons for the insurgents but, despite his claims to the contrary, had no better idea than anyone else just which insurgents could be trusted. As it happened, none of them could be and multitudes of them (and their weapons) have since left to join the insurgents in Syria.
Qaddafi warned of his fight with al Qaeda and now the three senators have helped the butchers take the country, as well as kill the U.S. ambassador and three others on 9/11 last, with the killers never apprehended. The country is much worse off today (ungovernable) than it was before Obama and the senators decided Libya was a patsy and could be had. The president said “days, not weeks,” but the bombing went on for seven months, with no accounting of the number of innocent Libyans killed.
In March 2012, the three senators came up with a “non-binding” resolution calling for the U.S. to arm Syrian rebels and establish “safe” zones inside the country. Problem: Even if Obama were to decide to do that, to whom would he give the arms? The situation is the same as that of Libya. How in the world would this country – without putting boots on the ground – establish any kind of zone? If the arms were to be funneled through the Arab League, they would wind up with the Muslim Brotherhood, which is currently accomplishing the ruination of Egypt.
Now, there are allegations that Assad is using gas on Syrian civilians. Actually, no one knows who is doing what in that benighted country. This is claimed by the pundits to be the crossing of Obama’s “red-line,” the marker establishing the use of troops. This would probably be fine with the senators, but what president in his right mind would send American GIs into a war-zone where gas is being used in a CIVIL WAR, which (sans the gas) is what was happening in Libya?
It’s especially outrageous to consider military action in light of the fact that the country’s been at war since 2003, with ground troops having been deployed multi-times to fight where their greatest fear is getting shot in the back by the people they’re supposedly helping attain democracy, an absolute impossibility in any Moslem-controlled nation anyway. Item: Interpol has a warrant for arresting the duly-elected Iraqi vice president, charged with supporting the CIVIL WAR actions of the Sunnis. He doesn’t dare show up at his own office.
None of the three senators has had ground-combat experience but Defense Secretary Hagel fought on the ground in Vietnam with distinction in another CIVIL WAR that cost this country 58,000 dead and accomplished nothing. McCain spent many years as a POW, Graham is yet a military lawyer and Lieberman has not worn the uniform. It’s doubtful that Hagel is interested in saving Syria militarily.
Maybe they ought to butt out or at least gin up some support from men who have fought on the ground, especially in Muslim territory, in which an anything-goes approach is okay, including wantonly killing women and children and back-shooting Americans, as is the case now in Afghanistan. If Obama had enough spine, he would be withdrawing Americans from Afghanistan NOW. The Russians, after spending the 1980s trying to subdue the Afghans, simply went home, with more than 13,000 dead and 35,000 wounded.
Does this country never learn?
And so it goes.