In much the same way that a stopped clock is right twice a day, I find that I can agree with the Tea Baggers on the issue of Syria.
This is going to be interesting to watch. The Tea Baggers have taken control of the Republican party on all matters social and fiscal, but there is still a divide in the party on the role of the U.S. in the world. My gut tells me that the pro-military wing of the Republican party is strong enough to win on this, and give Obama the vote he wants, but not strong enough to support McCain and Graham in their eagerness for a larger commitment of troops.
I spent much of the weekend reading arguments for and against some sort of U.S. strike (it was better than watching sports) and the arguments in favor all seem to be about who we are sending a message to. U.S. involvement would send a message to Israel and to Israel's opponents. It would send a message to Iran and to Hezbollah. It would supposedly "show Syria" there are consequences to the use of chemical weapons. But nobody seriously suggests that airstrikes would deliver those consequences to the people who actually deserve them, or even prevent repetition of chemical weapons use in the future. Does anyone doubt that, whoever the main victims might be, someone is already calculating the acceptable number of collateral damages, oops, deaths?
In the spirit of fairness, I will give you a link to what I think is the most thoughtful pro-strike arguments, by Ross Douthat, a generally conservative-leaning columnist. It doesn't convince me, but I give it to you anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment