Share This Article with a Friend!


CHQ Readers Oppose Neocon Sen. Lindsey Graham’s Middle East Quagmire

Amid allegations of a chemical weapons attack in Syria, Neocon South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham gave an interview to Foreign Policy magazine demanding that President Obama produce a plan to secure chemical weapon sites in civil war wracked Syria -- even if it means sending in U.S. troops.

Sen. Lindsey GrahamAccording to Foreign Policy magazine’s report of Graham’s comments, he said, "Absolutely, you've got to get on the ground… There is no substitute for securing these weapons. I don't care what it takes. We need partners in the region. But I'm here to say, if the choice is to send in troops to secure the weapons sites versus allowing chemical weapons to get in the hands of some of the most violent people in the world, I vote to cut this off before it becomes a problem."

To us this sounded like a call to intervene in the Syrian civil war, and thus enter another Neocon-inspired Middle East quagmire. However, we thought CHQ’s readers might see something we were missing in Graham’s alarmist talk about Syrian chemical weapons, so we asked our readers for their take on whether or not the United States should put boots on the ground in Syria.

According to the results of our online poll, CHQ readers aren’t buying Lindsey Graham’s George W. Bush-style approach to Syria, with 78% of those responding saying “No” to getting involved in Syria because they believe we will end-up in another Neocon-inspired Middle East quagmire.

However, a significant 14% bought Graham’s argument that the possibility of Syrian chemical weapons ending-up in the hands of Islamist terrorists was too grave a threat to let pass without intervention. An unusually high 8% of those taking the poll were undecided, meaning Graham’s position still has room to grow among skeptical conservatives.

We asked: “What do you think, should the U.S. send troops to Syria, ostensibly to secure the large stockpile of Syrian chemical weapons?”

You answered:

78% said “No, if the U.S. wades into the Syrian civil war, we will end-up in another neocon-inspired Middle East quagmire.”
 
14% said “Yes, the risk is too great if it appears that chemical weapons could end-up in the hands of Islamist terrorists.”
 
8% were undecided.

Share this

Syrian - Chemical Gas

I first would like to know what our U.S. Military has to said about what is going on over there.  Chemical Weapons are something we don't ever need bring out for any one to use.  I feel we should send an military investigation team to find out what is really going on out there and put together a report.  I don't see any problems letting both sides fight it out against each other unless one side is killing non combattens for no reasons.