Syrian Nightmare Requires Immediate American Intervention

436 Children suffered horrible deaths at the hands of their own government in Syria.  It is undeniable now that The Assad regime has used poison SARIN gas against their own people.  Regardless of your political affiliation,  it is obvious and most imperative,  that the USA respond in no uncertain terms against this shameful atrocity.


The people of Syria have attempted to keep the spirit and fires of the “Arab Spring” burning in their country.  A place where the oppressive Assad regime has systematically


English: SOCHI. With President of Syria Bashar...

English: SOCHI. With President of Syria Bashar al-Assad. Русский: СОЧИ, БОЧАРОВ РУЧЕЙ. С Президентом Сирии Башаром Асадом. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


choked off any real civil rights, any true personal freedoms for many years.  Like Saddam Hussein before him, Assad rules with an iron fist that though effective in limiting fanatical Islam, he has been suffocating the Syrian people.  The situation is similar to what has transpired in Egypt with the big difference being the strength of the masses of humanity demanding change in Cairo.  Another difference is the suspected proliferation of terrorist groups arriving in Syria as the battle continues.


In an article by the Washington Post’s online group entitles, “9 Questions about Syria you were embarrassed to ask”, Max Fisher says “The United States and allies are preparing for a possibly imminent series of limited military strikes against Syria, the first direct U.S. intervention in the two-year civil war, in retaliation for President Bashar al-Assad’s suspected use of chemical weapons against civilians.  If you found the above sentence kind of confusing, or aren’t exactly sure why Syria is fighting a civil war, or even where Syria is located, then this is the article for you. What’s happening in Syria is really important, but it can also be confusing and difficult to follow even for those of us glued to it.’   


Secretary of State John Kerry told House Democrats that the USA faced a “Munich


English: Bashar al-Assad under pressure

English: Bashar al-Assad under pressure (Photo credit: Wikipedia)


Moment”in their deliberations as to whether or not to respond to Syria’s use of chemical weapons.  Monday Kerry held a press conference during which called Syria’s president Assad “A two-bit dictator” who will “act with impunity”.  Kerry urged lawmakers to back President Obama’s plan to strike via air power in a “limited” and “narrow” way to cripple Assad’s military abilities to deliver chemical and conventional weapons.  This morning President Obama called for strikes  against Syrian military installations that will stop Assad from delivering chemical attacks against his own people,  and also to stop accidental  poisoning of neighboring Jordan, Turkey, Isreal and Saudi Arabia.  The President emphasized that there will be “no boots on the ground”.  All attacks will be carried out by allied (though mostly American) air power located in the region.


I applaud the President’s response to the crisis and I encourage our representatives to move swiftly to stop the needless murder of countless innocent civilians by a ruthless dictator. Unfortunately with every action comes a reaction.  Once Assad has been weakened,  will there be a flood of Islamic terrorists into the area?  Our covert opps in the region will no doubt be watching what transpires.  In the final analysis there is very little we can do to stem the tide of extremists. You hope that  eventually the will of the people will be done and in this case and the extremists will not prevail. The sheer numbers and power of the common people have kept the extremists at bay in Egypt. Can the same outcome be seen in Syria?  In Syria,  a confusing and bloody civil way makes for a very difficult and most complex situation.  Can the people in Syria who are looking to establish a western style democracy prevail?  Only time will tell but it is imperative that the Allied Forces act swiftly to protect the innocents from further harm.


The House Of Representatives has made their disdain for President Obama quite obvious over the past 5 years.   Various members vowing to do everything in their power to block his financial and social agendas.  I would be truly amazed if they try to put obstacles in the way of this foreign policy strategy specially since he has the backing of many ranking republicans throughout the Senate and the House.  Noted Republican Hawks John McCain and Lindsay



Pelosi (Photo credit: Cosmic Smudge)

Graham have thrown their support behind the President.  He has gone to Congress in an open and inclusive fashion and it seems they are appreciative of his efforts..  I believe it would be a terrible mistake to decide the fate of the Middle East based on petty political maneuvering. Nancy Pelosi,  the House Minority leader has joined the fray as well. in a piece by Susan Davis and Aamer Madhani stated, ”


“The minority leader has personally come out in favor of Obama’s decision to conduct airstrikes as a response to the Aug. 21 attack, which, according to intelligence reports, killed 1,400 people, including at least 400 children.”Military action in response to (Syrian President Bashar) Assad’s reckless use of deadly gas that is limited in scope and duration, without boots on the ground, is in our national security interest and in furtherance of regional stability and global security,” Pelosi said Saturday.Pelosi is a credible voice among anti-war liberals, and Obama’s top House ally. Her support is a signal that a significant faction of House Democrats will likely be on board. Pelosi is rarely out of step with her rank-and-file.”


Te time for action has arrived.  We can only hope a swift allied intervention will cripple Assad’s ability to continue his murderous campaign against his own people,  and ultimately will result in his ouster from power.




This entry was posted in International Politics, Politics, The Middle East and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Syrian Nightmare Requires Immediate American Intervention

  1. Pingback: Perspectives on Syria «

  2. Bill Deegan says:

    We have to come together as a country and condemn this genocide and take appropriate action. The congress needs to swiftly approve Obamas plan on a bipartisan level.
    A comment from Peter King on this subject really agitated me over the weekend when he started railing against Obama for following the constitution and going to congress instead of a unilaterally striking Syria. At times it’s like Obama can do no right with the Republicans. They have crucified him many times for “abusing” his powers and now they take him to task for doing the right thing.
    Is there an agenda against this president ,

  3. Joanne F says:

    Bill, I’ve felt the same way. The hypocritical statements coming out of various members of Congress is unbelievable! While I totally empathize with Joe’s statements above, especially re: murdering CHILDREN, I am still on the fence on this issue. Let me raise a few points and see what others think:
    1. Assad has been killing his own people for two years now. We’re going to get involved because he’s done it this time with chemical weapons? I fully acknowledge that the use of chemical weapons has been banned since WWI, but it almost looks like the prior lives lost weren’t worthy.
    2. Knowing that he has chemical weapons, it would seem appropriate to make a surgical strike against the factories producing them, assuming we can confirm their location and absolutely minimize human deaths. I read one story that said Assad is moving chemical weapons to high-density residential areas, which may or may not be true. I saw another report that alleged that they got the chemical weapons from the U.K., but I don’t think it was a reputable source.
    3. Speaking of reputable sources, a new source, RT (Russia Today), has been publishing not only the U.K. story I refer to in #2 above, but also a story alleging that it was a mistake made by the rebels that caused the release of the chemical weapons. I don’t believe it because Doctors Without Borders, which has no “dog in the game”, has reported what it sees there as they’re treating the victims. But I’m seeing something new here: A Russian media has “infiltrated” American media. Many of the stories it publishes are clearly corroborated by other, reputable media. But some stories appear to be “plants”, like these two. Why do I believe this? When I was a PoliSci major in college and studied various regimes including the old Soviet Union (I guess I’m dating myself here 🙂 ), I learned that those regimes control media and plant stories among verifiably true stories. Russia is led by Alexandr Putin, a former KGB chief, which agency was master at planting bad information in a country whose media is controlled by the gov’t. I am confident that some of these stories in RT are plants.
    4. Why not let the international community handle this, e.g., the UN? I wanted the inspectors to complete their work and submit their reports, then have the UN bring it up appropriately within its tribunal. Of course, the flip side to this is that it will go nowhere, because Putin has veto power, he has a strong allegiance with Syria and Assad, and he has vetoed every prior attempt to sanction Assad for killing his own people. But I would still like to hear the voice of the international community on this issue, and let it go on the world record.
    5. If we go ahead with a surgical strike, who are we helping? The rebels in Syria are affiliated with al Qaeda, no friend of ours. Have we decided that the rebels are the lesser of two evils?
    6. If we go ahead with a surgical strike, what happens next? Russia has sent its Navy ships to the area, which doesn’t exactly scare me because the Russian Navy is a joke, but it certainly escalates the hostilities between the US and Russia. Does this further destabilize the region? The Middle East? The whole area is in turmoil.
    7. We are quick to react to these types of atrocities in the Middle East. Why haven’t we reacted to the genocide in Africa? Millions have been murdered there by brutal regimes, and we have done nothing. Candidly, to me, anyway, it’s all about the oil, baby. Which means we need to accelerate our development and use of alternative sources of energy, to get off our dependence on oil.
    8. This issue has brought out the hypocrite in everybody. I can’t even begin to list the bold-faced hypocrisies coming out of the Republicans in Congress, but Bill notes some of them above. There are more. Suddenly, some of the war hawks in the GOP are calling for no action, and doves in the Democratic party are calling for action. Of course, the biggest war cries come from those obviously co-opted by the military-industrial complex.
    9. And speaking of hypocrisy, or shall I say irony: The U.K. says no, France says yes. Need I say more? I understand the U.K.’s war-weariness. Americans are war-weary, too, and that’s why we shouldn’t rush into anything.
    Sorry to take up so much space, this issue has been on my mind all week as I’ve read and gathered information, and I wanted to share it. Can you guys think of other issues?

    • joeref says:

      Hello Joanne. I will try and respond to each point you make.

      1-Chemical weapons may be the straw on this camel But I have always been in favor of some American/Allied response. The atrocities didn’t begin with chemical weapons but now that Israel, Turkey, Jordan and lebanon are in danger too I can see why the action now.
      2-Surgical strikes necessary immediately.
      3-Any thinking person knows that the Russians are NEVER to be trusted.Atrocities…What atrocities? Considering the treatment they have bestowed upon their own citizens for many years why would I find anything the Russians do trustworthy?
      4-Get as many nations to join as is possible and feasible. If not we need to do this.
      5-100% of the rebels are not Al Qaeda. From what I’ve read at least 50% of them are in favor of a western style democeacy.
      6-We do what we must…period.
      7-We have reacted to these situations in Africa, in South America, Asia. Sometimes you have to pick and chose depending on the strategic situation in a given area. Would it be great to just deal with all of this stuff all of the time? From a moral and ethical standpoint sure. From a reality standpoint, impossible.
      8-Not me. I think we should have dealt with this a year ago.
      9-France has always had a strange relationship with Assad. I’m not that surprised.

  4. Bill Deegan says:

    Not much to add to your post Joe, well said. As far as the rebels in Syria, I’m sure there are a number of them that are or lean towards terrorist believes. The whole Middle East is made up of so many factions that its impossible to say if there is a clear pro-democratic faction. All we can do is take out the obvious immoral and most dangerous ones then pick our new bedfellows very carefully and hopefully nurture their pro-democracy

  5. Joanne F says:

    Guys, a couple more stories/issues to add to the discussion, from news I read today:
    1 (or should I number it 10?): I did see another, reputable story — from the Daily Mail in the U.K. — confirming that the U.K. sold two of the chemicals that can be used to make chemical weapons to Syria about a year or so after their civil war began. Ew, Britain, what were you thinking? And maybe that at least partially explains their vote last week against intervention.
    2 (or should I number it 11?): About the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s 10-7 vote to authorize the president today, I saw the following quotes, which I thought were noteworthy: “I didn’t set a red line, the world set a red line,” said Obama. Secretary of State John Kerry, who testified Wednesday alongside Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs reiterated Obama’s remarks, adding: “This debate, I might add to you, is also about Congress’ own red line.” Kerry noted that Congress agreed to the Chemical Weapons Convention and passed the Syria Accountability Act, which says Syria’s chemical weapons “threaten the security of the Middle East and the national security interests of the United States.”
    Now, you’re apparently not the people who need convincing, so maybe I just shared this to try to convince myself.
    Anyway, more things to consider. Thanks for your comments above, both of you.

  6. joeref says:

    There comes a time when you have to do the RIGHT thing. Not the liberal thing…not the conservative thing…not the Republican or Democatic thing to do…not the Christian, Jew or Muslim thing…the right thing to do. This maniac is poisoning his own people…killing thousands of innocents and children. He must be stopped.

  7. Joanne F says:

    Agreed. I do try to think ahead, though, and wonder what effect this will have on such an already vulnerable Middle East. I also think about what happens to our allies in the area, e.g., Turkey and Israel, if we don’t act. Oh, my, there I go again, looking at all sides of the issue! This one is NOT easy!

  8. Bill Deegan says:

    The Middle East has never been nor will it ever be easy to figure out. It’s been an area of constant flare ups in various locations. The best we can do and must do is tacke the biggest issue of the day. The one we must address now is Syria and the current lunatic du jour.

    • joeref says:

      It’s funny and really sad but when I was 9 years old, in the fourth grade at PS 186 in Brooklyn, the Arabs and the Jews were shooting at each other. When I was in junior high in 1967 the Arabs and the Jews were shooting at each other. When I was in High School in 1970 the Arabs and the Jews were shooting at each other. When I was in college in 1973 the Arabs and the Jews were shooting at each other. A few years ago I was in NYC with MEDIA MECHANIX shooting a video at conference where Palestinians and Israelis where attempting to talk to each other. Though it was enlightening and generally civil, it eventually dissolved into a “verbal shooting match”. The Middle East will never be free of conflicts until a few things happen:

      1- All men are free and equal in the eyes of their governments
      2-The right of Israel to exist is universally accepted by all parties.
      3-The Palestinians have their own country.
      4-Rational people come to power and the notion of senseless violence and terrorism is rejected by the vast majority of the people.
      5-The Western world comes up with a viable alternative to fossil fuel energy.
      6-The Iranian people remove the crazies who are running their country
      7-Assad is overthrown
      8-Egypt becomes a stable free democracy inclusive of all the factions. When the vast majority of people reject violence, terrorism and dictators, all of these things will come to pass, and then of course the world will end…hahaha…just kidding…

  9. joeref says:

    Innocent people in those countries will be negatively impacted if we don’t stop this insanity now.

  10. Joanne F says:

    Wow, Joe, your list above is perfect! (And hahaha on the last comment.) I agree with all, although I would add that as to #6, the Iranians have already gotten rid of the crazy man, Ahmedinijad (sp). In fact, what I’ve been reading about Syria tends to indicate that Iran is actually quite nervous about this because they were headed down the path toward normal relations with the world. But that is an excellent list. I just finished reading “Zealot: The LIfe and Times of Jesus of Nazareth”, and the disputes, warring, killing, genocide, religiocide, etc., that go on today are not much different than what happened 2,000 years ago. For shame. We have to learn to live together. Or as John Lennon would say, “Give peace a chance.”

    • joeref says:

      I don’t know…the new Iranian leadership isn’t exactly a sane bunch either. I see people arguing over stupid nonsensical idiotic ridiculous BS.
      I watch road raged drivers running each other off the road. Learn to get along? That would be nice.

  11. Joanne F says:

    OK, guys, did you see today’s events? Oh, I think something dramatic is going to happen, and all the haters who think Obama can’t handle this issue are going to have a lot of egg on their face.

    The president went to the G-20 last week, and I frankly wondered how he would handle Putin, since they’re in chill mode, mostly due to Russia’s vetoes of sanctions against Syria at the UN and their cushy arms-sales relationship. We didn’t hear too much about the Obama-Putin one-on-ones. But today, we’re reading that Russia has agreed to try to persuade Syria to give up the chemical weapons, because of its concerns about a US strike against Syria. Tonight I listened to a Syrian media expert discuss Assad’s interview on American TV, and she said his interview indicated he is gravely concerned about what the US will do to him, and the worst thing that could happen there is the total destabilization of its gov’t.

    You know what I think happened/is going on? Obama told Putin he’s ready to go batshit crazy on Syria, irrespective of what the majority of Americans want — and he’s certainly giving the public that impression. I also think he told Putin the US could, in its surgical strikes, also knock out Assad’s more conventional weapons (whether deliberately or “accidentally”, if you know what I mean), which would totally destabilize him. Nobody but nobody — including the rebels — wants Syria destabilized, because it will lead to utter chaos and a breakdown of their entire gov’t.

    I frankly think this is what will happen: Russia convinces Assad to give up the chemical weapons, avoiding an American strike and UN action. America doesn’t strike, Assad doesn’t get stricken, and his gov’t doesn’t come tumbling down. Assad gets the message that if he doesn’t do something to try to bring peace to his country, he WILL become a victim. And Russia comes out smelling like a rose because of its role in solving the problem, yet continuing to get what it wants, i.e., to sell conventional arms to Syria.

    Problem solved? I’m thinking so…

  12. joeref says:

    Today’s NEWSDAY lays it out. It looks like cooler heads prevailed. Assad isn’t dumb enough to try and withstand the might of the US Military. I’m sure the Russians told him to shut up and back down. Let’s see if he actually does it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s