Share This Article with a Friend!

Just Say “NO” To Neocon Demands For War In Syria

President Barack Obama’s foolish statement that the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war would constitute a “red line” and grounds for U.S. military action in that country played directly into the hands of those neocons in Congress who want to see American troops in action in the Middle East again.

Sen. John McCainIn the past few days, Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Saxby Chambliss and (House Intelligence Committee Chairman) Representative Mike Rogers have all demanded that Obama stick with his vow to take action now that strong evidence has surfaced that Syria did indeed cross the “red line” by using chemical weapons against citizens who oppose the Assad regime.

Obama, for his part, has remained non-committal, saying on Friday that, "For the Syrian government to utilize chemical weapons on its people crosses a line that will change my calculus and how the United States approaches these issues.”

However, even far-left Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky – a vocal opponent of the Bush adventure in Iraq – has begun to sound like she buys the argument that the United States must intervene in the Syrian civil war to “safeguard” the Syrian chemical weapons stockpile.

“The day after Assad [leaves] is the day that these chemical weapons could be at risk,” the liberal Chicago Democrat told ABC News. “We could be in bigger, even bigger trouble.”

If the Left won’t put the brakes on the Obama administration’s lurch toward a war in Syria, who will?

Of course McCain and Graham claim that their demands for action do not include sending in American troops – yet.

"The worst thing we could do is put boots on the ground," FOX News quotes Senator McCain as saying.

Senator Graham also claimed that the U.S. could “safeguard” the weapons without a ground force. But he also said the weapons must be protected from getting into the hands of enemies.

It is completely illogical to claim that the United States can “safeguard” Syria’s chemical weapons without having someone on the ground -- and the most likely someone to call upon for that mission is someone in the U.S. military or CIA paramilitary forces.

Not to mention the fact that all of this flies in the face of what Senator Graham said back on March 19, when he told Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin, "Absolutely, you've got to get on the ground. There is no substitute for securing these weapons," he said. "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."

Republicans, such as Senators McCain, Graham and Chambliss and Congressman Rogers, have been doing a great job of embarrassing Obama and showing how foolish his “red line” statement was. But the logical conclusion of their campaign to show how feckless Obama is on national security is American intervention in Syria.

Such a course of action would play directly into the hands of our radical Islamist enemies. The Syrian civil war has created an entirely new theater for radical Islam to recruit jihadis and to engage them in live fire training. They would like nothing better than to draw the United States into another Middle East killing ground that will sacrifice American lives and further empty our Treasury.

For most of the life of this Republic, our country’s leaders wisely chose not to try to spread democracy or remake the world at the point of a bayonet. It is time for conservatives and libertarians to join forces and demand adherence to that sound national policy before America puts “boots on the ground” in the Middle East once again.

Share this


We should not try to police the civil war in Syria.  Let the wicked destroy the wicked in Syria and allow Israel tie up any loose ends without the US interference to mess things up.


That sounds great - letting Israel pick up the WMD's - but will they, or can they really do it?  No matter rwhat happens, we cannot let the whole world think we are afraid to get involved in the Middle East, where 20% of the world's oil now comes from.  We cannot allow that oil to be used against us in another great geopolitical robbery.  We have lowered our standard of living by tens trillions - like a great parasite, OPEC has drained our lifeblood from us for decades - and we have allowed it!  THe only reason we were involved in the first place in the Middles East was to secrure those oil supplies.  Perhaps, if we build the Keystone pipeline and drill here we will have the luxory of being finally being free from the slow strangulation by OPEC - that we have allowed.  RIght now, we don't have that luxory - we are still at the mercy of OPEC, and still need to keep the region as peaceful as we can.  Does that mean intervention in Syria?  Maybe and maybe not, but we must be prepared to police the Middle East as long as we are still dependent upon their oil.

The facts?

Are any of us sure we are getting the facts from our "intelligence" and our "free press"?  Because the same  cabal of elite creeps who control the military induestrial complex also control mainstream media.  That means even though something may be true, they may not tell us or report it.  And who knows what spin is fed them by their controllers?

Enough Already

Bring our Warriors home!

Islam IS Mission Impossible.


Save the Coptic Christians of Egypt from the

Tyranny and Death of Islam..Pray for them please.


Big John McCain is way off base.  We have no business intervening in Syria.  Send Big John McCain on the first invasion wave and let him get shot up.  He's a loone!