Posted on 08/30/2013 4:36:38 AM PDT by don-o
Column: Syria isn’t Iraq. It’s worse.
What is the difference between these two conflicts? In the former one, the United States was a participant. And America’s actions produced the current end state that, while not optimal, is better than the status quo ante. The dictator of Iraq, his family, and his party are dead or disbarred. They will never again threaten their neighbors, gas their people, or restart their weapons programs. The world never will have to worry about Saddam Hussein becoming a nuclear power. Nor will the world have to worry, at least for the time being, about ethno-sectarian genocide in Iraq, about al Qaeda turning Anbar and Diyala Provinces into Salafist strongholds and training grounds, about an Iraq partitioned irrevocably and dangerously into three squabbling nations.
In the latter conflict, the Syrian conflict, America has not participated at all. True, there have been gestures. The American president has deplored the violence. In 2011, he demanded Bashar al Assad give up power. In 2012, he said the use of chemical or biological weapons would be a red line triggering a forceful American response. America assisted covertly in training some rebel groups, supplied humanitarian aid, and promised, after Assad crossed the red line for the first time, to arm the rebels. But these words have not been followed by any meaningful action. Assad is still there. And the rebels have not received what they were promised.
(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...
Pres. George Bush fought al Qaeda.
Obama-the-Undocumented First Moslems ARMS al Qaeda
and removes weapons as protection from Americans.
AND THE WORLD DID NOTHING!!
Good article. Sometimes I feel like I’m in the minority among conservatives now, but Saddam had to go—and really it should have been back in 1991. Regardless, the decision to take him out in 2003 was right, although the execution at first was terrible. Once we had a competent commander at the top (say what you want about Petraeus, you have to give him credit at least for Iraq) and more importantly started loosening the ROEs and giving power to local officers on the ground, the situation changed completely.
I was very unsure about the first Gulf War for various reasons. However, once the Iraqi army was destroyed, I was absolutely outraged that we did not march on Baghdad and take care of business.
I’ve been steadfast in this view: I’m no fan of dubya, but the one thing I agreed with him on was going into Iraq and taking out Saddam. I have not changed my position on this. I don’t have a lot of respect for the culture over there and think that maybe we should have just left once we had Saddam and let the chips fall where they may.
Interesting article here: http://www.albawaba.com/news/iraqi-kurds-will-protect-syrian-brethren-512797
What if Iraq gets involved in Syria, to protect the Kurds? It may not be that unlikely. Iraq now has a US-trained and equipped army.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.