>> I'm not exactly sure how we should respond in the context of Syria, however.
It may work out just fine.
Or, it may not. We may start something that needs to be finished. He seems to assume it will be like Kosovo, and maybe it will.
But fundamentally, there is no difference between what he is apparently contemplating in Syria and what he so bitterly opposed in Iraq. On October 2, 2002, Obama said, "I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."
What, exactly, makes this war any less "dumb" than the Iraq War? That the intent is for it to be limited? (See: John F. Kennedy, who took office with fewer than 1,000 "advisors" in Vietnam, and died with 20,000, before his successor escalated it to 500,000).
Or more to the point, Rumseld's remarks --
"There are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know."
We simply do not know what an attack on Syria might lead to. |
