Is America focusing on the wrong target?
From either a humanitarian or a strategic perspective, Syria is far from being the most important challenge facing the United States. There are other more direct threats to our national security, and other serious violations of human rights.
Of course, not included in this discussion are the dire threats from a resurgent Russia or Communist China, both of which have developed vast militaries and an aggressive attitude. While both also are guilty of internal and external human rights violations, the reality is that their vast armed forces simply prohibit any attempts at intervention.
Seth Cropsey, an acclaimed expert on national security issues, recently wrote that “The policies that have led the United States deeper and deeper into the Middle East play to American weakness, which is intolerance for extended military commitments that produce doubtful results. Current policy would keep the United States in the Middle East for an unknown length of time.”
North Korea tops the list. This nation has nuclear weapons targeted against U.S. forces, a large conventional military, and an openly hostile attitude. The atrocities the Pyongyang government commits against its own citizenry actually dwarfs even the horrors Syria’s Bashir al Assad has unleashed on his people. The nation is essentially a vast concentration camp, and the population starves while the leadership feasts. There have been reports of desperate families resorting to cannibalism and children dying on street corners, ignored and unassisted. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/inside-north-korea-video-photos-... .
A non-governmental threat comes from the terrorist group known widely as the Boko Haram. Linked to al Qaeda, this organization, active in Nigeria, has over the past three years committed repeated acts of murder, including mass massacres and the killing of school children, kidnapping, attacks on churches, and bombings. The “Human Rights Watch” group is concerned about their crimes against humanity. The organization has threatened to hit western targets. The House of Representative’s Subcommittee on Counterterrorism has requested that President Obama pay attention to them. General Ham, in charge of American forces in the region, is also deeply concerned.
The failure of the Obama Administration to aggressively pursue terrorist groups, other than a few drone or special forces hits on leaders, has become a national debate in the U.S. The lack of an American response either during or after the Benghazi attack signaled American weakness. The President’s eagerness to replace Egypt’s pro-western Hosni Mubarak with Mohamed Morsi, a leader of the radical anti-western Moslem Brotherhood, continues to confuse both U.S. and international analysts, particularly in light of the human rights violations aimed at Coptic Christians committed by that group. Similarly, the President’s willingness to negotiate with Afghanistan’s Taliban sends a strange message. Indeed, Mr. Obama is reluctant to even use the phrase “terrorist.”
Looming above all the other examples is Iran, widely acknowledged to be the key “bad boy” in Middle Eastern disputes. The President’s stance on Syria contradicts his refusal to confront Iran’s leadership in any effective manner. His reluctance to confront the Mullahs began early in his administration, when he ignored urgent requests from Iranian Green Party freedom fighters seeking U.S. support of pro-democracy efforts. His premature withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq handed Tehran a major victory. The White House reluctance to address Iran’s nuclear program (developed with help from North Korea) will allow that nation to have both an atomic weapon and an ICBM capable of targeting America itself.
A major threat to American forces confronting Syria now comes, ironically, from Iran, the nation Obama has steadfastly been reluctant to confront. Along with Iran, China and Russia, nations that the President has refused to be firm with, are both threatening responses should any military action be commenced against Syria.
The chief benefactors of an American strike could well be al Qaeda and other Islamic extremist groups that the President has failed to adequately deal with. The unanswered question remains: why is Mr. Obama willing to intervene in Syria when he has been reluctant to take more urgently needed action elsewhere?