Facts: No Compelling Reason for US Military Strike on Syria

For a man who actively campaigned on his opposition to overseas military involvement, Barack Obama sure changed his tune once he became president.

Perhaps strangest of all, is the transformation of liberal Washington Democrats, the capitulation-at-any-price party, which has suddenly decided that the launching of cruise missiles is kind of cool.

Despite the president’s claims to the contrary, there is no clear and compelling evidence that Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, is directly responsible for the chemical attacks against his own citizens.

And if Mr. Assad were tried for these actions in an American court of law, there is already enough exculpatory evidence out there relating to the control of these chemical agents, as to present a reasonable doubt as to the Syrian leader’s guilt.

Moreover, how are we supposed to believe President Obama, who claims to know everything about the actions of Syria at the same time he claims to know nothing about the attacks on Benghazi?

Apparently, there are frequent gaps in the president’s intelligence.

Obama’s ability to learn what our enemies are doing isn’t much too good either.

Our nation should never go to war unless there is some compelling American interest at stake.

And there is none in Syria.

Before these most recent incidents, Syria hadn’t threatened the United States.

Syria certainly cannot be considered one of our friends. No doubt they harbor many within their borders who hate America.

But the current president of Syria is like many of the leaders in that part of the world, the least objectionable option of several bad actors.

In fact, our intervention in Syria might just result in overthrowing the government, which will only lead to another Middle Eastern state ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood, a group that makes no secret of their hatred for America.

Democrats in Washington love to get involved in wars in which America has no compelling interest.

It would appear that our sole objective for entering this war is to maintain the president’s reputation, after he foolishly made a statement about drawing a red line over chemical weapons.

Why must we be so concerned in helping the president to save face, when it’s obvious his actions in Benghazi have shown that he already possesses more than one?

The nation of Syria is another Middle Eastern quagmire for our country to enter. And if our actions are responsible for removing Assad, then the ones who will take his place are in bed with those who attacked us on 9/11.

Why should we help those who are dedicated to our destruction and the ultimate annihilation of Israel?

Our military intervention will only serve to accomplish that.

Of all the Muslim nations in the Middle East, the government of Syria is probably the least hostile to the practice of Christianity within its borders. Moreover, the same people who are currently seeking to overthrow the Syrian government are persecuting Christians in Syria at this very moment.

In order that there won’t be any misunderstanding, let me wrap up this column by saying that America has no business getting involved in Syria.

And, please, don’t give me any terms such as “moral authority,” such as the need for America to act, in order to keep children from being killed by chemical weapons.

That argument can’t be made by a president who has no reservations about allowing a doctor to plunge a pair of scissors into the brain of a third-trimester infant.

About the author: R.G. Yoho

R.G. Yoho is a Western author who has published seven books, including “Death Comes to Redhawk,” along with a non-fiction work entitled “America’s History is His Story.”

View all articles by R.G. Yoho

Like Clash? Like Clash.

Leave a comment

Please disable your Ad Blocker to leave a comment.

Trending Now on Clash Daily