“Congress must now vote to support the first steps of what will be a long march toward victory,” said Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. Following this clarion call, 71 House Republicans bolted to join 85 Democrats in voting no to U.S. funds to train and arm Syrian rebels.
Why the hesitation? Because our strategy in Syria is to rely on a Free Syrian Army that has been the least effective force in that civil war, and untrustworthy to boot. Units of the FSA have handed their U.S. weapons over to ISIS. Yet these “feckless” rebels, says Sen. Bob Corker, constitute “our entire ground game.”
John McCain raises a second issue. The FSA came into being to overthrow Bashar Assad. Now they are to be retrained to fight ISIS. How effective will the FSA be when told to change sides and become de facto allies of the dictator against whom they took up arms?
Projections are that it will take a year before we can set up and run camps in Saudi Arabia, vet volunteers, train, equip, and arm rebels, and send 5,000 fighters into battle in Syria. The United States will then be ensuring that a three-year civil war that has caused millions of refugees and cost 190,000 lives—soldiers, rebels, jihadists, and civilians alike—will go on indefinitely.
...
Brushing aside these concerns is the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial, “The Syria Campaign,” describes how the FSA can emerge victorious.
“American bombs aren’t yet falling on Syria, but on Tuesday Chuck Hagel suggested they soon will. … Let’s hope so.” the editorial began. Here is how the Journal‘s “military strategy” would unfold: ”A devastating air campaign against the Islamic State might at least weaken the group sufficiently to embolden a revolt and send new recruits to the FSA.
...
Does the Journal have in mind another unconstitutional war?
So it would seem. For the Journal not only wants bombs falling on ISIS, but on Assad as well. ”Defeating the Islamic State will also require attacks on the Assad regime. Sunnis will not support the campaign against Islamic State if they think our air strikes are intended to help the regime in Damascus and its Shiite allies in Beirut and Tehran.”
The Journal wants Obama to bomb Raqqa, ISIS, the Assad regime, and its army and air force, to give the FSA a “psychological boost.” Questions arise: Does the Journal believe Barack Obama needs Congressional authorization before going to war against Syria, which has neither attacked nor threatened us, but instead has expressed a willingness to work with us to destroy ISIS?
...
And if our bombing campaign against Assad breaks him, who comes to power in Damascus, if not ISIS, al-Nusra or the Islamic Front? What then becomes of the Christian and Shia minorities?
...
More:
http://www.theamericanconservative.c...ike-this-time/
Connect With Us