Obama Opponents Back Strike on Syria

The enemy of an enemy is still an enemy when it’s a regime led by an evil dictator. And that’s the case with Syria after even some of US President Barack Obama’s toughest critics endorsed his intention to hit Syria over the recent chemical weapon attack there.

One Republican Congressman, Eric Cantor, even argued that doing nothing puts Americans at risk of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). “A failure to adequately respond to the use of chemical weapons… only increases the likelihood of future WMD use by the regime, transfer to Hezbollah, or acquisition by Al Qaeda. No one wants to be asking why we failed to act if the next time Sarin [gas] is used it is in the Paris or New York subway.”

Cantor, in his statement, further noted that the civil war in Syria is also causing instability in the Middle East, as the violence has touched multiple other nations there. While the plan for a US strike is not expected to defeat the Syrian regime and Cantor has only backed a limited attack, he expressed the hope that it would diminish the “capacity” of that regime. He said the ultimate goal, long-term, is for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to leave power.

“Were Assad and his Iranian patrons to come out on top [of the civil war], it would be a strategic victory for Iran, embolden Hezbollah, and convince our allies that we cannot be trusted,” said Cantor.

Meanwhile, the New York Times reported that other high-ranking Republicans, who often oppose Obama, are also supporting a limited Syria strike.

The situation appears favorable that the US Congress will approve Obama’s proposal, meaning a Syrian strike could still happen in the coming weeks.

That’s good for you. Not only do Syrian chemical weapons pose a threat, the tension in the Middle East is likely contributing to why oil prices are on the rise again. So the sooner the US ends the current crisis, the better.

(By Joshua Spurlock, www.themideastupdate.com, September 3, 2013)

What do you think?