Carolyn Kaster, Associated Press
President Obama was right to seek "Congressional approval" for his planned U.S. military force against the Syrian government, especially since the Constitution requires him to do so.
However, U.S. military involvement in this Syrian civil war is neither wise nor justifiable. The United States has no national security interest at stake in Syria. Syria hasn't threatened the United States, and poses no direct danger to us.
This Syrian civil war — which has claimed over 100,000 lives — is basically a contest between groups aligned with Iran-allied supporters of Hezbollah on the one side, and predominantly al-Qaida-affiliated rebels on the other.
Recent chemical attacks on Syrian citizens — supposedly by Syrian President Bashar Hafez al-Assad — is indeed horrific, but there's no actual evidence that Assad was behind this terrible deed.
More likely, Obama is trying to pull a "Clintonesque" political stunt to distract us from the current domestic upheaval in the U.S., like defunding "Obamacare," by redirecting our focus toward this misguided invasion of Syria.
Needless to say, it's foolhardy, and will likely catapult this now confined conflict into an international disaster.
I stand with the vast majority of Americans in demanding Congress vote no to U.S. military action in Syria.
- On Second Thought: Departugal, Italeave and...
- John Hoffmire: The Amalfi Coast lemon: tasty...
- Letter: Panhandlers in Sandy
- Letter: Metal detectors
- George F. Will: The Great War: the hinge of...
- My View: High-risk pools: the life jacket...
- Richard Davis: Brexit wasn’t really...
- Kathleen Parker: Repeat, retreat, reload
- Kathleen Parker: Repeat, retreat, reload 59
- Hal Boyd: Hal Boyd: Why Mitt Romney's... 35
- Letter: Brexit shortsighted? 32
- Jay Evensen: Prayer can solve many of... 28
- Dan Liljenquist: Can Donald Trump be... 24
- Kathleen Parker: Clinton, Warren make... 23
- Letter: Panhandlers in Sandy 21
- Letter: Supporting teachers 21