Why Don’t We Hear Messages Like This From The Party Of The Resistance?

The Democratic Party has struggled to come up with a response to Donald Trump on Syria. While some disagree, they cannot come up with a unified opposition to the air strikes or intervention, so they limit their opposition to complaining that Trump failed to get Congressional approval. This is no surprise considering that their last presidential candidate had advocated far greater military interventionism than Trump, and previously attacked Obama for not pursing greater intervention based upon an extremely irrational argument.

While anti-war voices are rare, here is an example of a conservative who is making far more sense than most of the Democrats:

The U.S. military presence in Syria is illegal, and the same would be true of any occupying force provided by U.S. clients. Instead of looking for a substitute occupation force or maintaining one of our own, the U.S. should accept that controlling any part of Syria is not worth the costs and risks that go along with it. The U.S. has no business fighting in Syria, and it has no authority to keep its forces there, so a complete withdrawal from Syria is the only appropriate and legal course of action open to the U.S.

Unfortunately this is from a conservative blogger (Daniel Larison), and not someone who represents the policy of either political party. He wrote this in concluding a post on how Trump’s idea of having other countries replace US troops is not working.

Shouldn’t we be hearing more like this from the party which is supposedly the opposition party in Congress? We hear virtually noting from the party which claims to be “the resistance.” Instead the “opposition party” is being led by cowards who prefer to keep any real opposition voices from running.

Be Sociable, Share!

2 Comments

  1. 1
    Precambrian Rabbit says:

    Please remember that any US military intervention in Syria (or anywhere else) must satisfy TWO requirements, NOT JUST ONE!

    First, it must be approved by Congress under the US Constitution.  Everyone SEEMS to get that.

    But, SECOND, it must be approved INTERNATIONALLY, or else it is an UNAUTHORIZED ACT OF WAR.  A WAR CRIME.

     

     

     

  2. 2
    Mike Hatcher says:

    P.R – There are a number of things in your comment that are not clear to me. What is the source of the two requirements? How does one define military intervention?  What constitutes being approved internationally?

Leave a comment