As we noted yesterday, it appears the President is determined to provide military aid to the rebels in Syria. Doug Bandow of the
Cato Institute observes this determination and
writes the following for
RealClearPolitics:
Policymakers are preparing to join a civil war in which America’s security is not involved, other nations have much more at stake, many of the “good” guys in fact are bad, and there would be no easy exit.
Bandow concludes:
Syria is a tragedy. There is no reason to make it America’s tragedy. President Barack Obama should ask: does he want his administration to be defined by involvement in an unnecessary and unpopular no win war, as was that of his predecessor?
Michael Hirsh, of
Newsweek,
writes for
National Journal that the President is "slip-sliding toward Obama's third war." He continues:
Earlier this year, the CIA concluded that arming the rebels with small-scale weapons—what is likely now being considered—could not tip the balance of the conflict. U.S. and Israeli officials still fear that delivering anything larger or more lethal, such as antitank or surface-to-air missiles, could be used on U.S., Israeli, or commercial targets if they fell into terrorist hands.
Summing up, Hirsh concludes:
Obama is hamstrung not only by his own caution but also by the evident reluctance of the American people to get involved. According to a recent Gallup Poll, 68 percent of Americans say the United States should not use military force in Syria, even if diplomatic efforts to end the civil war fail.
