Situation in Syria Eerily Familiar — Another President Decides for War Based on Intelligence

I’m going to tell you a story and you tell me the first thing you think of.

A President of the United States receives intelligence from various agencies indicating that what the U.S. considers a rogue nation either is close to acquiring, has acquired, or may have even potentially used a weapon of mass destruction.

Okay.  What was the first thing that came to your mind?  Yeah, Iraq, right?

Bush:  My advice...don't listen to anything they say about "intelligence."  It's bad news, dude.
Bush: My advice…don’t listen to anything they say about “intelligence.” It’s bad news, dude.

Well, this past week, President Barack Obama did something very similar.  He has now pledged the United States military to support rebels in Syria to try to overthrow the government.  Now the situation in Syria has been escalating for some time, and many people out there already believe the U.S. is more than involved in it.  However, this changes the game because it is now publicly acknowledged that we are helping them, something that also happens to be a bit of a slap in the face to the Russians.  President Obama’s reasons for officially declaring United States involvement:  the current administration in Syria has used chemical weapons on its own people, according to “reliable intelligence.”

Is this the right decision?  That remains to be seen.  This article is not necessarily questioning the President’s judgment on getting involved, but simply pointing out that presidents make decisions based on the best intelligence that they have at the time.  Our question is that if it turns out the intelligence was wrong, will we have people lined up in droves to call President Obama a liar for doing what seemed wisest at the time?  This is not so much a knock on Obama but an example of how George W. Bush gets an unfair rap on the Iraq War.  There are myriad of things that Bush, Jr. could have done different, but going to war because of intelligence he received should never have been one on the list.  That’s what President’s do.  They rely on “experts” to give them the best advice based on the best information they have at the time.  President Obama is committing the same “crime” right now today in Syria.  No doubt plenty of former Presidents have done the same.  It’s part of the job.  Would you really want a president that did not listen to intelligence and made major world decisions based on gut feelings?

Once again, this is not us just going out on a limb and defending George W. Bush.  Bush made plenty of mistakes and there is good reason for the criticisms leveled at him.  However, it is important sometimes to take a step back and realize when you are glossing over your opinion because of the media and politics that sat out to assassinate the man and set up a period of Democratic dominance that may stretch on for years to come.  At the end of the day, President Obama or President Bill Clinton quite possibly would have decided the same thing that Bush did in the face of that same intelligence presented by those same supposedly credible organizations.  The liberal media would have never blamed them and called them liars for it, however, and that is the difference.

So, as President Obama follows in the footsteps of his predecessor once more, let’s look deeper into the issue.  Is there some other things that sound eerily familiar about this situation?  Well, here’s one.  We aren’t going to war.  We’re just providing military support to the side we want to win.  What does that mean?  We’re giving them weapons.  Hmm.  Sound familiar?  Who else did we give weapons to historically?  A lot of our enemies.

Today they are pointed at the Syrian Guard.  One day, they may be pointed at you.
Today they are pointed at the Syrian Guard. One day, they may be pointed at you.

Common Sense Conspiracy wants to go on and get on the board.  These weapons that our military is providing to the Syrian rebels will help them overthrow the government, as Obama and the powers-that-be want.  However, a decade or so from now, you will be hearing the mainstream media talking about an organization that arises from this that will be termed “The New Al-Qaeda.”  There will be an atrocious act of terror carried out by them, and everyone will say, “How could they do this to us when we were so kind and helpful to them during their revolution?”  We have a long, rich enemy of creating our future enemies.  If you think these Syrian rebels are warriors for democracy and due process, think again.  This is a classic case of one group of American haters warring with another, but one of the groups has a political advantage to the United States and the other one does not.  We’d all love to think that Obama just draws the line when chemical weapons on your own people are in the mix, but if that were true, then Democrats everywhere wouldn’t be protesting the Iraq War, which also involved a dictator that used chemical weapons on his own people.  Come to think of it, if that is a just cause to go to war, then Bush was as justified in the Iraq War as President Obama is now.  But you won’t see that on any signs or T-shirts.

So, when it is all said and done, what does this really mean for the average American?  Seemingly, not much.  Our soldiers aren’t involved.  We won’t notice the money as it will just be dissipated in a sea of overspending or simply borrowed to add to the enormous and ever-increasing national debt.  But one day ten or fifteen years from now, one of us, hard-working, normal, average, but extremely special Americans will go to our job and lose our lives in a senseless moment when these same Syrian rebels we outfitted with weapons decide to turn on us because they never wanted to be on our side to begin with, but only found it financially convenient at the time.  An ordinary mother or father will die in an “act of terror” from an organization that we, the American people, created.

Why not just go to war?  Send our troops in.  Bomb them.  Fight them.  Turn the tide.  Win the war for the rebels and then get out.  Don’t give them weapons.  Don’t give the homeless man money to buy some food.  Take him to the restaurant and buy it for him.  Make sure you get the result you desired with your resources and then walk away, leaving nothing behind to be utilized after you are gone.

Why can’t we just own our actions?  Why can’t we say this is what we are going to do and that’s all there is to it?  No, somehow we think that giving them weapons so they can fight is somehow more neutral than going to do it ourselves.   I wonder if our Russian friends agree?