The United States should not attack Syria
Never mind that the United States hasn't yet proven to the American people a direct link between Syrian President Bashar Assad's government and the chemical attacks that occurred late last month on the eastern edge of Damascus. Or that even America's most hard-core allies, including the United Kingdom, are against military action.
The United States should not attack Syria.
Someone please explain what a bombing and cruise-missile assault will accomplish? Will it demonstrate to the Assad government that America isn't afraid to go it alone and obliterate one of the oldest cities on Earth? Fallujah, anyone?
I have suspicions about what a U.S. operation might accomplish, however, and none are good. An attack will fuel already-simmering regional, sectarian conflicts in neighboring Middle Eastern countries. And it will uphold—no, escalate—this tragic proxy war within Syria, which already has gone on too long.
I'm disappointed by Obama. Many Americans believed he would be a president to work with and listen to the international community. But on Syria, his ears are, sadly, deaf.
And, as an American journalist, I'm equally frustrated by this country's traditional media and its kowtowing to war. Including The Sacramento Bee's editorial board, which, last Friday, beat the drum in favor of a military attack, arguing that Obama's reputation and this country's standing in the world will “suffer” if we don't drop bombs and lob missiles.
First, the president's reputation and the nation's standing are two different things. But both will suffer if we do attack. Have we learned nothing from the past dozen years of war in the Middle East? What's wrong with you, my America?