On Syria: we're less than sheep

Democrats abandoned the anti-war movement when Obama was elected. Which is why the movement more or less fizzled out.

And now that Obama painted his red line into a corner, Democrat-friendly MSNBC is now the War Channel.

At least the hawks are taking this very seriously. But not really though.

Even when Sec. of State John Kerry isn't ruling out boots on the ground.

Kerry is saying we'd put boots on the ground in #Syria if we do the same thing we did in #Libya and get the same result. #wmd @AceofSpadesHQ
— Chip (@cyamas) September 3, 2013

Why the hell are we thinking about bombing (and potentially invading) Syria? Credibility? Purely humanitarian reasons? To give one side in their civil war a little help? None of those reasons are even remotely persuasive. Maybe it's all of the above or some combination. But that does not make it any wiser.

Image credit: Erika Simon

Count me among the thinking people, both right and left, whom are highly skeptical, and are leaning heavily toward opposition:

From Allahpundit at HotAir:

The fact that [Kerry], of all people, has ended up in the Colin Powell role of war salesman here is so ironic that the whole thing seems a touch surreal to me, like a “Twilight Zone” twist to repay all the liberals who posed as anti-war circa 2004 but who were really just anti-Bush and anti-GOP. All we need now is Joe Wilson making the case for intervention on the Sunday shows and we’ll be set.

From David Atkins at Daily Kos:

The idea behind a limited missile strike campaign is supposed to be to degrade Bashar al-Assad's chemical weapons capability, purely as an effort to "enforce" chemical weapons law. But it's questionable whether such an action would actually constitute credible enforcement of the principle. Enforcement of the principle would involve punishing the actors involved, not limiting the ability to engage in the act again. And it goes without saying that limited strikes that might degrade his chemical weapons capability will do next to nothing to address the conventional weapons capability that is giving Bashar al-Assad the upper hand in the civil war.

Which leads to the second question: is the U.S. actually attempting to alter the balance of the Syrian civil war against Bashar al-Assad? Few in government are suggesting the sort of war footing that would be required to accomplish that goal, and for good reason. The cost would be astronomically high both in blood and treasure, it would likely bog the United States down in yet another quagmire, and it is quite likely to put theocrats in power who would be even worse for human rights in Syria and abroad. Even just destroying Assad's chemical weapons capacity might even embroil the United States in a bogged-down conflict without even the slimmest hope of a positive outcome.

It's cliche to say we're a nation of sheep, but I think it's worse than that. Sheep at least have a shepherd who is to some extent, responsive to them. We however, appear to be immaterial.

Update: A one-party system, two factions.