Watch Out...Bipartisan Calls For Military Invovement In Syria

On the 10th Anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, two Senators are calling for deeper involvement in Syria.

First, Democrat Carl Levin, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

After the hearing, Levin directly endorsed the idea of attacking Syrian air defenses and using the Patriot missile batteries in Turkey to establish a no-fly zone inside Syria in an interview with The Cable.

"I believe there should be the next ratcheting up of military effort and that would include going after some of Syria's air defenses," Levin said.

Regarding the establishment of a no-fly zone inside Syria, Levin said that would help both protect innocent civilians and speed the end of the conflict.

"You could protect that kind of a zone with these Patriot missiles, leaving the missiles in Turkey but having the zone inside the Syrian border," he said. "It is a way without putting boots on the ground and in a way that would be fairly cautious, that would put additional pressure on Assad and also create a zone where Syrian people who are looking for protection and safety could come without crossing the border and becoming refugees."

As always, Lindsey Graham was there to up the ante and call for an invasion of Syria.

"My biggest fear beyond an Iranian nuclear weapons capability is the chemical weapons in Syria falling in the hands of extremists and Americans need to lead on this issue. We need to come up with a plan to secure these weapons sites, either in conjunction with our partners [or] if nothing else by ourselves," Graham said.

Asked if he would support sending U.S. troops inside Syria for the mission, Graham said yes.

"Absolutely, you've got to get on the ground. There is no substitute for securing these weapons," he said. "I don't care what it takes. We need partners in the region. But I'm here to say, if the choice is to send in troops to secure the weapons sites versus allowing chemical weapons to get in the hands of some of the most violent people in the world, I vote to cut this off before it becomes a problem."

Now Graham may mean some special operations raids but he goes on to say, "I can confirm the fact that the chemical weapons are all over Syria...". I don't think a quick in and out by Navy SEALs is going to deal with a problem "all over" the country. Either Graham is talking about a major military commitment or he's hyping the threat.

All of this comes on a day there's another report that chemical weapons have been used by the Assad regime.

Let me make my thoughts on the idea of the US getting involved militarily as clear as possible...No. Actually let me expand my thoughts....HELL NO.

The "world community" has spent the last decade bitching about how awful America is and how terrible it was for us to push regime change. My indifference is simply a case of others reaping what they've sown.

A lot of Americans died in Iraq because the Syrians served as a conduit for al Qaeda fighters to enter Iraq. Again...reap follows sowing. I hear about casualties in Syria and simply shrug. Add in the fact the people we would be helping are jihadis and I start to actually cheer casualties.

Oh and how are we paying for this proposed little adventure? All the talk about the impact of sequester on the military just, what? Goes away?

If the Turks want to shoot down aircraft in Syria, have it. They want to rebuild the Ottoman Empire, good luck but you're on your own doing it. If the Syrians want their freedom, let them keep fighting for it.

posted by DrewM. at 07:11 PM

| Access Comments