Our congressional representatives, as well as each and every mouthpiece sent forth to speak for the Obama Administration, all repeat, ad nauseam, the “no boots on the ground” mantra regarding a U.S. military intervention in Syria.
Give them their due: politicians can recite poll-tested phrases better than the best-trained kangaroos.
But I’m decidedly not reassured. Saying “no boots on the ground” while advocating military actions that might trigger the need for ground-stomping boots simply suggests a dangerous naivety about the nature of war among policymakers.
If the situation in Syria is so serious that the United States should launch a military attack, is it really so unthinkable that at some point after intervening directly in an evolving civil war — say if things don’t go so swimmingly — that the circumstances could arise for U.S. soldiers to be placed on the ground in this devastated country?
War isn’t always easy-going and reasonable — or predictable. And firing missiles to blow up things in Syria, almost certainly killing people, is very much an act of war.
Granted, the U.S. can fire Tomahawk missiles destroying targets in Syria from Navy ships sitting safely far away in the Mediterranean Sea. But what if the Syrian government found a way to respond militarily or via a terrorist attack killing large numbers of American soldiers or civilians?
Wouldn’t that lead to a major military response, including the distinct possibility of boots on the ground?
Of course.
Politicians have long needed remedial instruction. Whatever your view on intervening in Syria, shouldn’t we begin with a lesson on actions having consequences?
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
8 replies on “Boots on the Ground”
Boots are already on the ground.
Just not officially. Where do you think those ex-Navy SEALs that messed up the planned Benghazi ambassador capture by actually fighting back came from? Plenty of CIA boots.
Can’t have a “standing” army and not have it eventually used. Power ALWAYS corrupts. A standing army ALWAYS gets used for purposes that have nothing to do with defense. That is why they are so dangerous.
Which is why our founders tried to make it so that no army would be automatically funded for more than 2 years. They thought that if the representatives had to go back to the people to ask for more money every two years, that they had better have a damn good reason or else they would get thrown out. Our founders were not perfect. They were plenty smart. Just not smart enough to anticipate the level of corruption involved in our current political process.
Or maybe they were and that was why they included the Article 5 process to amend the Constitution, so that the people could throw out some of the bums and rein in the federal government, if it got bad enough.
Without having to shoot them.
Before doing anything UNLESS DIRECTLY ATTACKED (SUCH AS 911 OR PEARL HARBOR)–before the US can go to war, THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND THE ADMINISTRATION, THEIR SONS ( AND NOW THAT WE HAVE A CO-ED MILITARY) DAUGHTER, NIECES AND NEPHEWS HAVE TO GO ALSO.
NOT LIKE NAM, WHEN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, THEIR FAMILIES ATHLETES AND THE CONNECTED DID NOTHING. (GORE WAS BASICALLY A CLERK, IN A SAFE ZONE) ( HIS FATHER WAS A SENATOR)
Senator Inhofe (R-Ok) is magnificent. He has said that with the weakened and defunded military it would be “immoral” to go to war in Syria.
Having slashed our defense, now Obama finds an occasion to get into a conflict with Russia and Iran. And the other possible beneficiaries are Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Not only would strikes be immoral, they would be unconstitutional, and what the WH needs to know is that Congress declares war, and we will not accept any “State of Emergency” declarations in our own country that may result from his maneuvers, nor will we fund it, nor will we accept his illegal ban on offshore oil drilling if oil prices spike.
We have no business getting involved in Syria in any way, shape, or form.
Obama wants us involved because, as a Muslim, he is required to help fellow Muslims. That’s the bottom line.
He couldn’t care less about our troops, our citizens, or our Constitution.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned at a news conference Tuesday that any punitive action against Syria for its alleged chemical weapons use would be illegal unless it was done in self-defense or authorized by the U.N. Security Council. (September 3, 2013)
Did the U.N., it light of Obama’s retreat, just grow a pair?
So how does Obama propose to ensure that Assad’s chemical weapons don’t fall into the hands of Islamic radicals fighting him?
Certainly, there will be boots on the ground guarding the weapons, the question is whose boots.
Lacking knowledge of who’ll obtain these weapons after Obama goes to war, without boots on the ground, is lacking in foresight. This is reason enough to not go into Syria.
[…] out. Our commander-in-chief has repeatedly assured us there are no boots on the ground. Certainly, the city-within-a-city U.S. Embassy in Baghdad isn’t going to be overrun or anything […]