Warning: there's a bit of offensive language. And a LOT of offensive argumentation. If you can call it that. Keep in mind this wiener writes for "The Catholic Thing".
Ladies and gentlemen, Brad Miner of :The Catholic Thing" on "Why I'd Bomb Damascus."****On Syria: In H.P. Willmot’s history of WWII, THE GREAT CRUSADE, he makes the point that Allied failure to act – enforcing treaties with China – to defend Manchuria against the Japanese invasion (1931) was an incitement to global war. Hitler saw that Manchuria was left to twist in the wind, and was emboldened to move on the Sudetenland. In all, 60,000,000 (conservatively) would die in the next fifteen years of slaughter. There was talk in the lead up to the Gulf War (1991) that it was all about oil. I argued at the time – at a National Review gathering (under questioning by WFB) – that, as in the Thirties, we needed to consider that what may seem but a single ember floating on a breeze may drop upon tall, dry grass and ignite a spreading conflagration. And this is the problem we face in Syria. Inaction (as Buddha famously put it) IS an action. Yet if the 20th century teaches anything it’s that (to paraphrase Richard Weaver) action has (unintended) consequences. So: bombing WMD stores in Syria could end up being another Nagasaki or Dresden. But: the Japanese and Germans are now among America’s closest allies. And: the Arab and Muslim nations might unleash hell on Israel. But: Israel isn’t Czechoslovakia. Maybe: Mr. Obama would rather have Israel clean up this mess. But: An attack on Damascus by the U.S. could, as Assad has promised, lead to retaliation against American targets. Or: Assad is taken out in an attack and the rebels succeed, and the rebels are Al Qaeda. If: You toss any sort of incendiary into this situation, you can’t possibly know how it will play out. Still: Failure to act makes the U.S. look like a paper tiger (as Mao used to say). Meanwhile: Any targeted attack on Assad would seem to be in violation of Jimmy Carter’s (Executive Order 12036) prohibition of assassination. (Confirmed by Reagan – EO 12333.) But: The very best result would be a coordinated effort of bombing and spec ops in which among the casualties is Bashar al-Assad. It’s not right; it’s against the law; it solves part of the problem. But: Then what? Quoting those noted political philosophers, The Who, what if: “Meet the new boss/same as the old boss.” Adding: Except worse. Years before my time at National Review, James Burnham used to listen to this sort of dialectic and say: “If there’s no solution, there’s no problem.” If I were president, I’d unleash hell from the sky and mop up all the identifiable bad guys – if that were possible. I’d call Bibi and say: “That’s it, my brother. But we’ll be with you at Meggido if the shit really hits the fan.”