The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (7 comments)

  1. Jon Murphy

    I don’t understand what the President is trying to do here. He intervened in Libya for a lot less. Is he worried about a Russian reaction?

    1. No. He is worried about making the same type of stupid error that he made in Libya. While Gaddafi was a very bad man the people that the US and NATO armed were just as bad if not worse. They may now have a new government but that government can never be legitimate because it is seen as being put into place by outsiders meddling in what should be Libyan affairs.

      Obama should not aid in the destruction of ancient Christian communities by helping to put into place an Islamic regime that would like to see their extermination. Of course, it is doubtful that he will do the right thing because he is just as morally bankrupt as Bush and Clinton were and likes the idea of distracting voters by giving them a foreign conflict to cheer.

      1. Gaddafi was great man honestly. And NATO’s intervention was all about ripping off Libya, they can’t fool Russia/China again to whether agree or abstain from UN resolution anymore.

        1. Gaddafi was a thug who was used by the US and NATO to torture suspects believed to be sympathetic to al Qaeda. The invasion was about overthrowing him even if NATO had to support radicals who were worse than he was and clearly not as tolerant of other religions as Gaddafi was. When the regime fell weapons found their way to thugs on both sides of the conflict. Some of his forces packed up those weapons and went home where they tried to create a new government in Mali. In response the French, who are worried about mineral rights held by Areva and other French companies, decided to attack the rebels. When Algeria allowed French jets to use its air space groups of extremists decided to attack a gas plant where foreign workers were killed. (Mostly by the Algerian military.) They call this blowback and it is the unintended price paid by the US and NATO for the stupid attack against a country that was contained.

  2. Max Planck

    This piece is absolutely hilarious!

    “But it’s equally possible that Assad is testing Obama’s resolve with a discrete use of a chemical weapon that does not murder in massive numbers and is used in a part of Syria in which Western observers are few.”

    That’s right folks. With this tyrant’s head an inch away from rolling down a Damascus alleyway, what Assad is REALLY concentrating on is “testing” the President’s “resolve.” Between that and deciding how he wants his lamb shank prepared, Assad has nothing else to think about.

    What a collection of loons. They’re not called “wingnuts” for nothing.

    To answer Mr. Murphy- you will note the requisite absence of oil in Syria, hence, our lack of interest in intervention. It’s their country, let the rebels fight for it.

    1. Steve Lyle

      Dear Mr. Planck:

      “… equally possible…” does not mean as you write it, “…Assad is really concentrating on…” which advances your missive to the most amusing on my screen.

      “…equally possible…” is most certainly no more speculative than your observation regarding oil deposits in Libya as a factor in ‘leading from behind’ in that country.

      Both of your contentions are stated as proven facts; which they are not but posited as such in a manner we might predict. Reason, my progressive muchacho is your friend; take him with you on your travels!

      1. Max Planck

        Oh, shut up.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:


Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Refine Content