Why Not Mention Sarah?
Posted on 06/21/2013 6:23:46 AM PDT by Bigtigermike
On U.S. military intervention in Syria's civil war, where "both sides are slaughtering each other as they scream over an arbitrary red line 'Allahu akbar' ... I say let Allah sort it out."
So said Sarah Palin to the Faith and Freedom Coalition conference. And, as is not infrequently the case, she nailed it.
Hours later, Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times, at length, echoed Palin: "Those who are urging the US to get more deeply involved in the Syrian conflict now are living in the past."
Four fundamental changes make it "no longer realistic, or even desirable, for the US to dominate" the Middle East as we did from the Suez crisis of 1956 through the Iraq invasion of 2003.
The four changes: the failures of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, the Great Recession, the Arab Spring and emerging U.S. energy independence.
Indeed, with $2 trillion sunk, 7,000 U.S. troops dead, 40,000 wounded, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans dead, and millions of refugees, what do we have to show for this vast human and material waste?
Can a country with an economy limping along, one that has run four consecutive deficits in excess of $1 trillion, afford another imperial adventure?
(Excerpt) Read more at m.townhall.com ...
the only ‘failure’ in iraq and afghanistan is the lack of will to DESTROY THE ENEMY, instead we engage in PC R.o.E. b.s. that results in more american deaths...
She sure has a way of creating pithy accurate phrases.
Clever marketing. Pat has written hundreds of articles calling for an isolationist foreign policy that few people have read. By putting Palin in the title, she isn’t mentioned after the third paragraph, he guarantees a much larger audience.
That's why the political consultant class hates her - she writes and delivers her own content. How on earth are they going to justify a paycheck for themselves?
Why Not Mention Sarah?
“Better then that they fear us.”
I’m with you,. I sure miss those days.
Amazing that the “idiot” Sarah Palin is one of very few who seem to understand the role of the use of American military power.
Pat Buchanan would make a good Sec. of State. Was the 1st Iraq war worth it? I’ll admit the REAL 911 required a take-it-to em’ response but I’d be happy to get out of the middle east. Our fracking discoveries should settle it. The only POTUS who would hire him is Sarah.
I read your comment before it got yanked and I agree. I’ve got far more isolationist in the last ten years and cringe when I look back at all the rah-rah when we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. I also cringe whenever the Navy ad comes on that talks about protecting diversity as “a global force for good”.
I think our best strategy is to keep both sides even for the next decade or so.... maybe two.
I totally agree with letting events sort themselves out in Syria. Its a no win situation for us. The only reason I’d support intervention is if it threatened our allies or interests and right now I don’t see that. I personally hope Assad falls not because it benefits us but simply because it allows the natural political progression to proceed in the region. No more can the argument be made that the US is the reason for Middle East problems because of propped up dictators etc. The people in the Middle East have for too long been perpetual victims of international politics and its long past time that they sort things out for themselves and if they are more focused on fighting internally they are less likely to be interested in us and once they do quit fighting we can deal with the result which will very likely be an United Islamic States in the Middle East or the near equivalent which will force us to become stronger and less acquiescing to naiveté concerning the region. It also means we will be forced to rely more on our own natural resources which is a good thing.
We did some good work in Iraq and Afghanistan and I supported it wholeheartedly but it came at a high cost that has been far higher simply because of the political reality of fighting a war where our soldiers are thrust into the bad position of having to second guess themselves and make political considerations rather than the simple one of making sure they and theirs are not killed and that the enemies die quickly. Some times there are problems that we cant fix or the cost is too high to fix and the Middle East is one of those. We don’t need to be there beyond assisting our allies.
Its time to let the people of the MiddleEast experience the tyranny of their own making without the US States as a scapegoat. We’ve spent enough blood & treasure trying to fix their problems while our own country is being eaten away from the inside.
First time I’ve had a comment yanked, but for some reason today the PC garbage got to me and I just could not help myself. I just needed to vent a little bit, even if inapprorpriately so.
Not only don't we have a national interest pushing us to get involved, the exact opposite is true. By staying out of it, we allow two separate bloodthirsty factions of our sworn enemies to turn their attentions toward each other and away from us, and start to "off" one another in huge numbers w/o our interference, blame, and the huge cost w/o benefit.
And the corollary to staying out of the middle east is:
Stop
Giving
Them
Money
I think it is important to note, that she did not completely rule out intervention in Syria. She said to stay out until we get someone who knows what they are doing is in charge. So she is open to intervention abroad as long as long as Obama is not in charge.
See my tagline.
Why?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.