Trump's Syria Withdrawal Is Reckless And Treacherous, But...

Trump just announced that he will be abruptly pulling all troops out of northern Syria, while allowing Turkey to invade Syria, essentially throwing our Kurdish allies to the wolves after all they did for us for so many years now.  Predictably, this has earned him strong condemnation from both corporate duopoly parties that are invested in the military-industrial complex, but not only from them.  The truth, however, is a bit more nuanced than that, even if Trump doesn't really do nuance.

It is obvious now that Trump is clearly Putin’s puppet and is pulling out of Syria for the very basest of ulterior motives: to appease Putin and Erdogan, to “wag the dog” and distract from his mounting scandals, and of course to nurture his own fat relentless ego. And he is doing it as abruptly and chaotically as possible, without so much as a heads-up beforehand to our allies, especially the Kurds who he seems to have no qualms about selling down the river to Turkey.  Very base and cowardly indeed.  

We at the TSAP thus condemn Trump's withdrawal for the way he is doing it and the timing of it.  But...

That said, sometimes even a stopped clock can be right twice a day. As we have noted time and time again, we need to get the hell out of out of not just Syria, but also the decades-long quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan, the latter of which is longer than Vietnam at this point.  ISIL, though clearly still in existence as a terrorist group (kinda like al-Qaeda and the Taliban, etc.) is nonetheless defeated territorially compared to 2014. Time for other countries/actors to step up to the plate and do whatever remains of the heavy lifting now.   Long past time for that, in fact.

And we also need to stop suborning Saudi Arabia’s unconscionable mass-murdering proxy war in Yemen as well (though Trump seems cool with that for now).

"Endless war" is NOT a sustainable strategy.  In fact, it is not even a strategy at all, but a concept, and an absurd one at that.  The only people who benefit from it are the oligarchs and the military-industrial complex, as the late Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler once famously noted in his 1935 book War Is A Racket.  (Of course, WWII was the exception that proves the rule.)

Whether a war is a “wham, bam, thank you ma’am” kind of war like Libya or a decade(s)-long quagmire like Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, the end result is essentially ultimately the same sort of disastrous failed state that becomes a magnet for extremists.  And once it becomes Quagmire Accomplished like it is currently, whether we leave now, a year from now, ten years from now, or 100 years from now, the result on the affected nation(s) we invade and subsequently leave is basically the same.  Quick withdrawal in general is thus the lesser evil on balance.

In fact, Tom Englehardt (Tom Dispatch) and Peter van Buren had the best idea of all--quick withdrawal, after getting ISIL where it really hurts by taking out their OIL.  Such targets--wellheads and oil trucks--are not at all hard to find, and are fairly easy to take out from the air.  And put diplomatic and economic pressure on Turkey and other so-called "allies" to stem the flow of Daesh oil as well.  Because oil is their primary source of funding, and removing that will cause them to quickly collapse of their own weight, and when they are seen as a failure then few would want to join them.  And once we take it out, then GTFO and let Daesh fall on their own sword.  (And apparently, we ended up doing a modest version of exactly that sort of oil campaign, with a fair amount of success, albeit late in the game and minus the withdrawal.)

The TSAP agrees with that idea, and we would also like to add to that.  We have said it before, and we will say it again.   Before withdrawing, we should give every *woman* over there an AK-47 and tell them to take over their country and mow down anyone who stands in their way. Let Allah sort it out. Problem solved. But of course, the mostly-male powers that be would not be too keen on that idea. After all, they wouldn't want women in THIS country getting any ideas, now would they?  (Of course, the TSAP believes that women should indeed take over the world in order to save it, so that wouldn't really be a bad idea, come to think of it.) Honestly, it is certainly a better idea than arming questionable male "rebels" who end up turning traitor.  Seriously, think about it.

For Iraq and Afghanistan, we need to get out yesterday.  For Syria, it is more nuanced and complicated thanks to Turkey's latest incursion into Syria, and of course what that means for the Kurds (spoiler alert: it isn't good).  Thus, being a bit less hasty with withdrawing the 1000 or so troops in Syria specifically would probably be the least-worst idea right now.  And in all of these countries, a post-withdrawal Marshall Plan would also be a good idea as well to help deal with the aftermath.

Like the song says, if we go it will be trouble, if we stay it will be double.  And those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

UPDATE:  Just 24 hours after he recklessly shunted troops to the side in Syria (he didn't actually remove them yet from Syria, but plans to) to pave the way for the Turks to invade and slaughter the Kurds (which they are apparently doing right now), he ordered 1800 troops to Saudi Arabia, because reasons, perhaps to provoke Iran.  This man is extremely dangerous right now, amd clearly unfit for command even as dogcatcher, let alone President of the United States.

Why We (Partly) Agree With Trump on Syria (and Afghanistan)

Trump just announced that he will be pulling all troops out of Syria, and reducing troops in Afghanistan as well.  Predictably, this has earned him strong condemnation from both corporate duopoly parties that are invested in the military-industrial complex.  The truth, however, is more nuanced than that, even if Trump doesn't really do nuance.

It is obvious now that Trump is clearly Putin’s puppet and is pulling out of Syria for the very basest of ulterior motives: to appease Putin and Erdogan, to “wag the dog” and distract from his mounting scandals, and of course to nurture his own fat relentless ego. And he is doing it as abruptly and chaotically as possible, without so much as a heads-up beforehand to our allies, especially the Kurds who he seems to have no qualms about selling down the river to Turkey. Very base and cowardly indeed.  

That said, sometimes even a stopped clock is right twice a day. As we have noted time and time again, we need to get the hell out of out of not just Syria, but also the decades-long quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan, the latter of which is longer than Vietnam at this point. ISIL, though still in existence as a terrorist group (kinda like al-Qaeda and the Taliban, etc.) is nonetheless defeated territorially compared to 2014. Time for other countries/actors to step up to the plate and do whatever remains of the heavy lifting now.   Long past time for that, in fact.

And we also need to stop suborning Saudi Arabia’s unconscionable mass-murdering proxy war in Yemen as well (though Trump seems cool with that for now).

"Endless war" is NOT a sustainable strategy.  In fact, it is not even a strategy at all, but a concept, and an absurd one at that.  The only people who benefit from it are the oligarchs and the military-industrial complex, as the late Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler once famously noted in his 1935 book War Is A Racket.  (Of course, WWII was the exception that proves the rule.)

Whether a war is a “wham, bam, thank you ma’am” kind of war like Libya or a decade(s)-long quagmire like Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, the end result is essentially ultimately the same sort of disastrous failed state that becomes a magnet for extremists.  And once it becomes Quagmire Accomplished like it is currently, whether we leave now, a year from now, ten years from now, or 100 years from now, the result on the affected nation(s) we invade and subsequently leave is basically the same.  Quick withdrawal is thus the lesser evil on balance.

In fact, Tom Englehardt (Tom Dispatch) and Peter van Buren had the best idea of all--quick withdrawal, after getting ISIL where it really hurts by taking out their OIL.  Such targets--wellheads and oil trucks--are not at all hard to find, and are fairly easy to take out from the air.  And put diplomatic and economic pressure on Turkey and other so-called "allies" to stem the flow of Daesh oil as well.  Because oil is their primary source of funding, and removing that will cause them to quickly collapse of their own weight, and when they are seen as a failure then few would want to join them.  And once we take it out, then GTFO and let Daesh fall on their own sword.  (And apparently, we ended up doing a modest version of exactly that sort of oil campaign, with a fair amount of success, albeit late in the game and minus the withdrawal.)

The TSAP agrees with that idea, and we would also like to add to that.  We have said it before, and we will say it again.   Before withdrawing, we should give every *woman* over there an AK-47 and tell them to take over their country and mow down anyone who stands in their way. Let Allah sort it out. Problem solved. But of course, the mostly-male powers that be would not be too keen on that idea. After all, they wouldn't want women in THIS country getting any ideas, now would they?  (Of course, the TSAP believes that women should indeed take over the world in order to save it, so that wouldn't really be a bad idea, come to think of it.) Honestly, it is certainly a better idea than arming questionable male "rebels" who end up turning traitor.  Seriously, think about it.

Look, we dig why the generals don't want to pull out anytime soon, especially not abruptly, and it's not just about job security either (though that is likely part of it too). No one wants it on their conscience if things go horribly wrong afterwards, and such consequences can in any way be linked (however tangentially and speciously) to such a withdrawal.  But Trump clearly has no conscience, and it was his decision, so we now get to let any potential adverse consequences weigh on his nonexistent conscience.  Thus, the generals should really see this as a golden window of opportunity to finally extricate ourselves from the quagmire of the Middle East wars--and even in a worst case scenario, everyone's hands will be clean but Trump's either way.  So what are we waiting for?

Like the song says, if we go it will be trouble, if we stay it will be double.  And those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

JANUARY 2019 UPDATE:  Looks like the other notorious loose cannon of foreign policy, neocon John Bolton, is trying to delay the Syria pullout by "months or years".  So much for that.   In the meantime, is always fun for genuine progressives like us to watch neocons, neoliberals, neoconfederates, and Trump supporters fighting against each other.

Quagmire Accomplished, 15 Years Later

What's left after 15 years since George W. Bush had the not-very-bright idea of invading Iraq in 2003?  One MILLION people dead in total, thousands of American servicemembers dead and many times that number wounded, trillions of dollars in the hole, the horrific scourge of ISIL that would not otherwise have even existed, and no one held accountable at all.  Add the 16+ year long Afghanistan quagmire to the mix, and the more recent incursion into Syria, and the death toll and total costs rise even higher still.

The moral of the story:  Wars have consequences, often serious and far-reaching ones.  So going to war should NEVER be done unless absolutely necessary, and certainly not willy-nilly.  Unnecessary wars of choice create terrorists faster than we can kill them.  And whether it's a "wham, bam, thank you ma'am" sort of war like Libya or a decade(s)-long quagmire like Vietnam, Iraq, or Afghanistan, the end result is ultimately the same sort of disastrous failed state that becomes a magnet for extremists.  And once it becomes Quagmire Accomplished, whether we leave now, a year from now, ten years from now, or 100 years from now, the result on the affected nation(s) we invade and subsequently leave is basically the same.  Quick withdrawal is thus the lesser evil.

In fact, Tom Englehardt (Tom Dispatch) and Peter van Buren had the best idea of all--quick withdrawal, after getting ISIL where it really hurts by taking out their OIL.  Such targets--wellheads and oil trucks--are not at all hard to find, and are fairly easy to take out from the air.  And put diplomatic and economic pressure on Turkey and other so-called "allies" to stem the flow of Daesh oil as well.  Because oil is their primary source of funding, and removing that will cause them to quickly collapse of their own weight, and when they are seen as a failure then few would want to join them.  And once we take it out, then GTFO and let Daesh fall on their own sword.  (And apparently, we ended up doing a modest version of exactly that sort of oil campaign, with a fair amount of success, albeit late in the game and minus the withdrawal.)

The TSAP agrees with that idea, and we would also like to add to that.  Before withdrawing, we should give every *woman* over there an AK-47 and tell them to take over their country and mow down anyone who stands in their way. Let Allah sort it out. Problem solved. But of course, the mostly-male powers that be would not be too keen on that idea. After all, they wouldn't want women in THIS country getting any ideas, now would they?  (Of course, the TSAP believes that women should indeed take over the world in order to save it, so that wouldn't really be a bad idea, come to think of it.)

Honestly, it is certainly a better idea than arming questionable male "rebels" who end up turning traitor.  VIVE LA FEMME! 

Trump Just Bombed Syria, Because Syria Bombed Syria. Or Something.

Well, it finally happened.  Trump ordered an airstrike of 59 Tomahawk missiles on a Syrian Air Force base on the night of April 6, 2017.  Ostensibly in retaliation for the horrific sarin gas attack by the Assad regime against their own civilians, this marks the first time the United States directly attacked any targets of the Assad regime, as prior to this, we were solely attacking ISIL and al-Qaeda affiliates' targets, effectively as grudging and uneasy "co-belligerents" with the regime as well as Russia.  So unless this is just a one-off for show, this marks a major shift in foreign policy and military strategy in the region.

Of course, this may very well just be a way of "wagging the dog", distracting us from the ever-growing Russiagate scandal.  And while the Putin regime predictably condemned the airstrike, it is very telling that Trump told Russia about his plan before he even told Congress.  And it's not like the attack was particularly effective:  it didn't really do much damage to Syria's Air Force, and in fact the very next morning they launched another poison gas attack (this time with chlorine gas) against civilians in another town.   And even the initial sarin attack came just days after the Trump administration gave what can be interpreted as a not-so-subtle green light of sorts for the Assad regime to do as they please with impunity--kinda like Trump appeared to do with Putin just before the final Aleppo massacre in November.

Oh, and did you know that those same Tomahawk missiles used in the airstrike were manufactured by Raytheon, whose stock price jumped dramatically the day after the attack?  And which plutocratic potentate owns stock in that exact same company?  You guessed it.  As Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler once famously said, "War is a Racket".  And his 1935 book of the same name should be required reading for everyone.

It is funny how Trump supporters who voted for him because they feared Hillary would attack Syria, now have face the fact that Trump just did exactly that.  And yes, Hillary most likely would have done so.  Not to condone Hillary's plan for Syria, but at least Putin was afraid of her, and she could have used such leverage to keep Russia and Syria from getting too out of control.  And we all would have seen big, tough, macho Putin begging a powerful Woman for mercy.  And that would have been priceless in itself.  Of course, Bernie would have been better, but alas that was not to be.

While the TSAP unequivocally condemns the brutal chemical (and conventional) attacks on civilians by the evil and genocidal Assad regime, we do not belive that Trump is taking the right path in his reckless and impulsive unilateral attack on Syria.  If we do intervene, we must do so along with the international community, and pursue diplomatic measures to bring the Syrian civil war to as quick an end as possible.  History has shown that, military action, should we even pursue it at all, should be a very last resort and should be well-planned and coordinated with our allies, with a clear exit strategy and a plan to actually win the peace.  Otherwise, we risk WWIII, or at the very least another Middle Eastern quagmire akin to the worst of Libya and Iraq combined, on steroids.

We ignore history at our own peril.  The song "2 Minutes to Midnight" by Iron Maiden comes to mind.  Which is basically where the Doomsday Clock is set now, thanks primarily to the drunken Darth Vader wannabe and his orange ventriloquist dummy in the White House.

How To Really Defeat ISIL For Good

The USA and coalition forces have been bombing Daesh/ISIL (which we prefer to call them so as not to inadvertently profane the name of the Goddess) for over a year now, 17 months to be exact.  And Russia has been bombing them for nearly three months now.   And yet they still seem to be spreading, even though they are clearly on the losing side in the long run.   After the first few weeks of bombing in August/September 2014, the fight basically became a stalemate which lasted until Russia started their airstrikes in Syria, tipping the balance against Daesh once more.

Now the hawks such as Donald Chump are, unsurprisingly, calling for an escalation of this war.   Clearly, we are already fighting fire with gasoline, and those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.  In fact, it was our own meddling and warmongering that caused Daesh to become a problem in the first place!  But here is a better idea--let's NOT give Daesh the "holy war" they so desperately want.  In fact, Tom Englehardt (Tom Dispatch) and Peter van Buren have the best idea of all--quick withdrawal, after getting them where it really hurts by taking out their OIL.  Such targets--wellheads and oil trucks--are not at all hard to find, and are fairly easy to take out from the air.  And put diplomatic and economic pressure on Turkey and other so-called "allies" to stem the flow of Daesh oil as well.  Because oil is their primary source of funding, and removing that will cause them to quickly collapse of their own weight, and when they are seen as a failure then few would want to join them.  And once we take it out, then GTFO and let Daesh fall on their own sword.

The TSAP agrees with that idea, and we would also like to add to that.  Before withdrawing, we should give every *woman* over there an AK-47 and tell them to take over their country and mow down anyone who stands in their way. Let Allah sort it out. Problem solved. But of course, the mostly-male powers that be would not be too keen on that idea. After all, they wouldn't want women in THIS country getting any ideas, now would they?  (Of course, the TSAP believes that women should take over the world in order to save it, so that wouldn't really be a bad idea)

Honestly, it is certainly a better idea than arming questionable male "rebels" who end up turning traitor.  VIVE LA FEMME! 

Two Minutes To Midnight

World War III may not have begun in earnest just yet, but the risk of it occurring still looms large if the conflicts over in the Middle East region continue to accelerate.  The biggest elephant in the room is not Daesh (ISIL), Iraq, Syria, Iran or any country over in that region--it is the USA and Russia, and to a lesser extent Israel, who combined possess enough nukes to kill at least 8 billion people.  All it will take is one miscommunication and BOOM--it's game over for all of humanity.  And the two primary countries have not exactly been very friendly to each other lately.  Combine that with the threat of climate change, and the World Doomsday Clock, currently set to three minutes to midnight, might as well be set to two.  A certain Iron Maiden song comes to mind.

Meanwhile, rich war profiteers of the mercenary-industrial complex (MIC) are literally making a killing off of it all.  Like the song says, the golden goose is on the loose, and it's never out of season.  Major General Smedley Butler wrote an excellent book about it back in 1935, War Is A Racket, that should be required reading for everyone and would seem to apply a fortiori to our time.  The profiteers/racketeers and their sycophantic lackeys in government keep on pushing for more and more American military involvement in Iraq, Syria, and other countries, when it is clear that America's meddling essentially created Daesh in the first place.  In fact, not only did the 2003 invasion of Iraq pave the way for the current crisis by destabilizing Iraq, but the USA had also been arming various "rebel" groups in Syria in the hopes of toppling Assad.   And many of those "rebels" turned traitor and joined al-Qaeda and what would become Daesh as well.  It is exceedingly likely that the oligarchs did so deliberately in order to further their Machiavellian machinations.

The time to end all of this insanity and evil is yesterday.  The TSAP hereby proposes a law be passed that we call the War Pigs Act, named after both the ineffectual War Powers Resolution of 1973 and the Black Sabbath song War Pigs.  The first part of the new law would put some teeth in the War Powers Act by closing the loopholes and holding the President liable for any consequences of a war that is not authorized by Congress and is not during a state of emergency caused by an attack on the USA.  And absent a formal declaration of war by Congress, absolutely no war may last beyond 90 days (60 days followed by a 30 day withdrawal), save for a temporary authorization of force that expires 90 days after the authorization passes or 180 days after the war began, whichever occurs first.  After that, the must be a formal declaration of war, or the war must end.  Period.  The second part of the law would implement some of Maj. Gen. Butler's recommendations from his book, taking into account that we currently have an all-volunteer military.  Take the profit out of war, first of all.  And for any war lasting beyond six months (which by definition would now require a formal declaration of war), require an annual limited plebiscite of all citizens that would be eligible for military service.  Make it a non-secret ballot such that those who vote "yes" would be drafted if we run out of volunteers, followed by those who abstain from the vote if necessary.  Those who vote "no" would be exempt from any such draft.  A kind of "consensual conscription", if you will.  We would all have skin in the game.  Women would be included as well, but before they draft the very first woman, we should draft men in their 40s and 50s first.  The demographic group who starts the wars but rarely fights.  It's only fair, right fellas?

Watch as war becomes a thing of the past.  As Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler said, "TO HELL WITH WAR!"

Tell Congress: NO MORE WARS!

Six months after the current war against ISIS began, President Obama is currently trying to get Congress to pass a new Authorization for the Use of Miltary Force (AUMF) to continue this war up to three more years.

As far as what the Obama administration hopes to accomplish by fighting fire with gasoline, we really don't know.  But doing so is unlikely to really achieve anything good in the long run, and will likely just make things worse overall.  And indeed, it is already backfiring, as anyone who is paying attention can clearly see.  The original justification for "humanitarian" bombing, namely rescuing the Yazidis who were trapped on a mountain and were about to be exterminated, has since evaporated, and any other justification for further airstrikes is pure mission creep, plain and simple.  Pretty soon they will be calling for boots on the ground when the airstrikes inevitably fail to eradicate ISIS/ISIL/IS or whatever they happen to call themselves this week, and we all know where that leads.  Truly, the road to hell is paved with (ostensibly) good intentions.

Honestly, there really is only one solution in that part of the world, and we are only half-joking about this one.  Give every woman over there an AK-47 and tell them to take over their countries and mow down anyone who stands in their way.  Let Allah sort it out.  Problem solved.  But of course, none of the powers that be over here would be too keen on that.  After all, they wouldn't want women in THIS country getting any ideas, now would they?  Though replacing all of our current Big Wetiko "leaders" with women would really not be a bad idea at all, come to think of it.  Perhaps then the USA would not be so eager to continue on our omnicidal path of endless war and imperialism, which let's face it, is fundamentally a "guy thing".

Thus, we all need to ask Congress to NOT authorize any more of this stupid, futile, and unnecessary war.

War Is Over, If You Want It

Well, it's now official.  The USA has begun airstrikes in Syria now, in addition to escalating airstrikes in Iraq, with no end in sight.

As far as what Obama hopes to accomplish by fighting fire with gasoline, we really don't know.  But doing so is unlikely to really achieve anything good in the long run, and will likely just make things worse overall.  The original justification for "humanitarian" bombing, namely rescuing the Yazidis who were trapped on a mountain and were about to be exterminated, has since evaporated, and any other justification for further airstrikes is pure mission creep, plain and simple.  Pretty soon they will be calling for boots on the ground when the airstrikes inevitably fail to eradicate ISIS/ISIL/IS or whatever they happen to call themselves this week, and we all know where that leads.  Truly, the road to hell is paved with (ostensibly) good intentions.

Clearly, we need to abort this stupid war of choice in the first trimester, so to speak.  If Obama continues beyond 90 days, then We the People (via Congress, right!) may indeed have the authority to impeach him if he continues to wage war without Congressional approval as per the War Powers Act.  At the very least, Obama needs to have his Nobel Peace Prize revoked yesterday, as he has failed to promote peace.  To the flip-flopping Secretary of State John Kerry, we have a question for you.  How do you ask a man (or woman) to be the last to die for a mistake?  Because we wouldn't know anything about that.

As for all of those fools who claim that "we can fight them over there, or we can fight them here", we at the TSAP have a message for ISIS and their ilk:  Don't even THINK about coming here!  If you come anywhere near our soil, you will be pretty damn lucky if all you get is deported.  And if you dare try any sort of funny business here, there will be a gunman hiding behind every blade of grass in this country, and WE WILL BURY YOU--WITH PIG OFFAL.  No 72 virgins for you, parasites.  Besides, virgins are in short supply these days it seems.  You have been warned, now cease and desist before you REALLY wake the sleeping giant!

A Modest Proposal for the Middle East

Much to our chagrin, President Obama has gone through with airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq.  Apparently, we have scraped the bottom of the barrel and found a terrorist group worse than Al-Qaeda, and even Al-Qaeda is afraid of them.  They seek to establish an Islamic "caliphate", and will stop at nothing to achieve it.  They will literally kill, rape, torture, and/or enslave anyone who stands in their way, especially women and children, and the TSAP feels that animals like that need to be humanely euthanized, and even that would be too kind.  That said, we also feel that war is not the answer, since American intervention was what created the conditions that allowed ISIS to take root in the first place.  Violence only begets more violence, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and if you fight fire with fire we ALL get burned.  And there is clearly no such thing as "humanitarian" bombing, regardless of what some war-hawks may claim.

But since President Obama has already begun the airstrikes, the TSAP hereby makes the following modest proposal to him:

1)  First, take the War Powers Act extremely literally for once, and draw a line in the sand that we will completely abort the bombing mission after 90 days (if not sooner), no ifs ands or buts about it. No escalation either, and certainly no boots on the ground. After that, the Iraqis are completely on their own, period.

2) Pull all troops out of Afghanistan by the end of 2014, like you promised.

3) Stop supporting Israel's genocide (yes, that's what it really is) of the Palestinians, and pressure them to end the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank and implement a two-state solution.  For the Golan Heights, leave it up to the residents.

4) Cut the "defense" spending by half, establish a Department of Peace, and set up a sort of "Marshall Plan" for the Middle East region using a portion of the money saved.  And perhaps do these things as well, which certainly couldn't hurt.

5)  Finally, and we are only half-joking about this: when we finish "playing exterminator" and pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., we should give every woman over there an AK-47 and tell them to take over their country and mow down anyone who stands in their way. Let Allah sort it out. But of course, the powers that be over here would never support that. After all, they wouldn't want women in this country getting any ideas, now would they?  (Actually, replacing all of our Big Wetiko "leaders" with women wouldn't be a bad idea, but that's a topic for another discussion)

But hey, what do we know?  We're just the 800-lb gorilla (or is that guerrilla?) in the room.

WWIII Averted, For Now

It looks like the United States, Russia, and Syria have reached a diplomatic deal that would stave off war for now.  Syria would have to declare, turn in, and destroy all of their chemical weapons in short order.  Of course, doing so during an active civil war would be a lot easier said than done, but this is a good first step toward defusing a ticking time-bomb in a volatile region and preventing a wider war.  Though long-term success is far from certain, such a deal definitely reduces the risk of World War III from happening in the near future.  And it may increase the chances of a cease-fire in the not-too-distant future.

The True Spirit of America Party believes that there is no military solution to the crisis in Syria, and that violence will only beget more violence in the long run.  While there is mounting evidence that the Assad regime and their lackeys are responsible for at least some of the chemical weapon attacks on civilians, it is also clear that both sides have a ton of innocent blood on their hands.  Those who have committed such horrific atrocities need to be brought to justice, but bombing Syria will clearly do far more harm than good overall.  What may start out as a "limited" air war can quickly turn into another Iraq or Vietnam, or worse as Syria and possibly other countries (i.e. Iran) or Hezbollah fight back, other countries get drawn in, and the Al-Qaeda affiliated rebels attempt to take over the failed state of Syria.  At best, we would be killing a couple hundred or thousand people (inevitably including civilians) just to make a point, and end up likely repeating it in the future as the bloody civil war continues unabated.  At worst, we risk igniting WWIII, the road to universal slaughter.  And on balance of probabilities, history suggests that once we start such a war, contrary to our president's wishful thinking, we would have little choice but to put countless boots on the ground for the long haul (years or even decades), and thus be stuck in a serious quagmire for the foreseeable future. (Where will we get all those extra troops from?  Shhhh...don't say the D-word!)  Unless of course America resorts to using nukes, which would become the worst (and most hypocritical) atrocity that our country has ever committed in its entire history, except perhaps the attempted genocide of Native Americans.

So does that mean America should turn a blind eye to the horrific mass murder of innocent civilians?  Of course not.  That is a false choice that the hawks like to throw out there, and other options still remain.  By all means, we should continue to work on stopping the violence via diplomatic means in conjunction with other nations.  We should increase humanitarian aid to the people of Syria.  We should also do our part to take in the large number of refugees that the Syrian civil war is creating.  All of these things would at the very least take the edge off the crisis, and may even bring lasting change.  And as soon as it is feasible, atrocity perpetrators on both sides of the conflict should ultimately be brought before the International Criminal Court so that justice is served.  But war is not the solution--it is part of the problem.  Just ask any survivor of the numerous Middle Eastern wars of the past half-century.  Killing to stop the killing will only lead to more killing, and too much blood has already been spilled in the 21st century alone. 

To President Obama (and Congress): Do NOT Attack Syria!

The True Spirit of America Party would like to let President Obama and Congress know that attacking Syria is a foolish, reckless, and morally bankrupt "solution" to Syria's growing civil war.   While we wholeheartedly condemn the atrocities committed by the Assad regime, we still do not believe that the United States should go to war with Syria.  And here are the top ten reasons we oppose it:

10)  Most of our own allies, including our staunchest ally of them all (the UK), oppose such action.
9)  Going it alone unilaterally worked so well in Iraq, didn't it?  Oh wait....
8)  We risk another quagmire like Iraq, or worse.   Air strikes alone would not solve anything, and would be like fighting fire with gasoline.  A full-blown ground invasion would indeed effect regime change, but it would create a dangerous power vacuum like in Iraq.  We may have won in Iraq, but it was a Pyrrhic victory, and one more such "victory" will likely be America's undoing.
7)  We risk a far wider war than we are prepared for, possibly drawing in other countries such as Iran, Iraq,  Israel, and Jordan.   Perhaps even Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Russia.   WWIII is a definite possibility! 
6)  Many of the rebels are affiliated with Al Qaeda, and perhaps other terrorist groups as well.  Do we really want to inadvertently help them get into power over there?
5)  We are still not 100% positive that the Assad regime was responsible for the chemical weapon attacks, since some rebels have supposedly admitted to "accidentally" doing it themselves.   (That being said, we do know that the regime has deliberately killed countless innocent civilians over the past two years by conventional means)
4)  Intervening in civil wars, at best, creates a temporary pause in the killing.  At worst, it adds to the killing.  There is really no military solution to the Syrian crisis, and killing a few hundred (or thousand) people just to make a point is probably the most morally bankrupt option of all.
3)  America is not in a position for yet another war of choice.  Now is definitely NOT the time to risk so much blood and treasure.  Focus on rebuilding OUR nation instead.  America needs to stop policing the world, mind our own business, and retire from that position now.
2)  Syria is really not a credible threat to the security of the United States or its interests.  They are NOT a clear and present danger to us.
1)  Above all, a preemptive war of choice, absent an imminent threat to us or our allies, is always immoral, and two wrongs don't make a right.

We hope our leaders heed such advice before they decide to cross the Rubicon.  Otherwise, this may be America's last war, and not in a good way.  History speaks for itself.