Hussein’s Folly

The current Democrat administration in Washington seems about to embark on the next ill-advised intervention in a brutal civil war in the Middle East.

After two and a half years of fighting, over 100,000 deaths, a quarter of a million injured and nearly 2 million refugees, suddenly the tragic deaths of 300 people, apparently from sarin nerve agent, has produced a storm of “moral indignation” requiring that the Western nations launch a military attack on the Assad regime.

Whether or not the regime carried out the attack, or al-Qaeda or some other group of rebels, is still in doubt. That said, the “moral indignation” is so much moralizing humbug.

Back in the Cold War days, chemical weapons were classed as Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) mainly because any country attacked with them could respond with another WMD, possibly nuclear. Chemical weapons were labelled the “poor man’s nuclear bomb” because they can be highly effective against unprotected populations, either military or civilian.

Chemical weapons were used extensively in the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s by both sides and inflicted tens of thousands of casualties. The rest of the world did “stand idly by” then because, quite simply, that was all that could be done.

Any military operation must have a clear objective in strategy and a detailed tactical plan for achieving that objective. The military requires solid decision making from the political leadership and an assurance of continued support during military action. Ask any military man or woman.

President Obama can supply none of these things. He is a feckless leader who has consistently shown his lack of understanding of the political situation. He has made threats that he has had no intention of following up on (“red lines”) and has supported, in Egypt at least, the Muslim Brotherhood, which is devoted to establishing an Islamic tyranny. He has failed on all occasions to even protest about the persecution of Christians by Muslims in the Middle East and, at the infamous Cairo University speech, shown his ignorance of history.

Leadership flows from force, power and strength, never from weakness. And “leading from behind” tells the rest of the world that weakness leads America.

He has thus rendered American foreign policy in this part of the world nugatory.

Poking a stick in the eye of one partner in a fight between two warring thugs and then running away after a day, which is what the Administration appears to be saying, will impress no-one, except of course, the President, who seems endlessly impressed with himself. No doubt his sycophants in the liberal media will grovel in faux admiration.

And suppose that this attack does not deter the use of chemical weapons? What then? What if Hezbollah decides to attack Israel in revenge? Where does that leave the Americans?

Prime Minister Cameron in Britain said recently that the response should be “legal and proportionate”, or words to that effect. Here again, we see a total lack of understanding of the mind-set of the people they are up against. They are fanatics who are willing to fight and die. Unless you are prepared to do all that is required and use overwhelming force to crush your opponent, your opponent will win.

Military force should never be used unless there is an absolute commitment to follow through. This is not a board game of “Risk” or “Diplomacy”, the lives of our military are at stake. Further, telling the enemy when you will go home is the height of foolishness.

America and the world deserve better leadership than this.

Have a Nice Day,
Rebel Yell