In fact, everything about this conflict is suspicious. The Syrians oddly publicly threatened to use chemical weapons a year ago. What on earth did they hope to gain? Indeed, the opposition quickly called their bluff. As one analyst explained:
The [rebels] knew – as much of the world will soon realize – that the threat to use chemical weapons would not only be ineffective, but would backfire. This threat is ineffective because chemical weapons are subject to atmospheric conditions and are difficult to deliver, making them notoriously difficult to use and are therefore not particularly threatening to sophisticated militaries. The threat is also not credible since Assad risks an even worse outcome if Syria’s chemical weapons get into the hands of his numerous domestic enemies… Not only does Assad’s threat to use chemical weapons not likely deter outside intervention, but it will almost certainly incite the ire of the international community even further. The more the world believes that Assad is a monster willing to use chemical weapons, the more likely they are to push for his removal.
This civil war is a prime example of asymmetric warfare, where a smaller, poorly-armed opposition is facing a well-armed, larger conventional force. In these situations, terrorism much better serves the rebels, especially if they can pin the blame on the regime. Furthermore, we are not dealing with nice little patriots here. They are just as brutal as the regime.
So when Obama issued his bold threat a year ago, was he simply drawing a red line he was confident the regime wouldn’t cross, or was something more malevolent at work? If killing civilians justified an American response, were the Syrians not killing enough civilians with conventional weapons already? Why would Syria use such an ineffective means of eliminating their enemies when it would simply bring more condemnation from the international community?
Obama’s “red line” on chemical weapons was an open invitation to the Syrian opposition. He has to be smart enough to know this. Since the administration has been covertly supporting the Syrian opposition since 2012, is it possible that he was inviting this attack as a pretext for overtly entering the fray?
Whatever the case, he now must find a sucker to own his grossly flawed foreign policy. After all, he went it alone once already in Libya, and this has not gone well for him. Furthermore, he wants to advance the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine – championed by his chief patron, George Soros, and his vitriolically anti-Semitic new UN ambassador, Samantha Powers – by legitimizing it with congressional support.
Be clear: there is no positive outcome to involvement in Syria. Obama will not allow America to “win” in any way that serves our national interest. He has already proven this in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq. How much more evidence do we need? And how much more does our exhausted military have to expend blood and treasure in pointless, demoralizing foreign misadventures that by design are destined to fail? Finally, a win for al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria would directly threat our only genuine ally in the region, Israel. Is this the real endgame?
President Obama’s foreign policy – whatever his motives – has been an unmitigated, nonstop disaster, counted in squandered American lives, lost allies and societal chaos in one of the most pivotal regions in the world: the Middle East. If Republicans in Congress don’t stand up to this one-man wrecking crew and make sure America isn’t drawn into yet another foreign policy disaster, then they will indeed be just as culpable.