Hurt Our Enemies!

If Syria didn't involve questions of national interest like Syrian support for terror (including support that helped kill hundreds if not thousands of American troops in Iraq), the fate of Iraq, and Iranian plotting to extend their influence to the Mediterranean and foment war along Israel's borders, I'd be able to draw some satisfaction from President Obama's difficulties.

After all, the president finds that after treating Republicans like the real enemy he needs to defeat with wars abroad as "distractions" to the real fight, President Obama finds he needs Republican support for an actual war abroad that the president is choosing to fight.

After all, President Obama is choosing to fight a war against a Baathist minority religion dictatorship that he says has used chemical weapons against his own people, supported terrorism, and even shot down American war planes (some years ago, granted) when President Obama made his career on opposing a war against an Iraqi Baathist minority religion dictatorship that used chemical weapons against its own people (and against Iranian soldiers) that fired on American war planes on a regular basis.

But we have to live with President Obama for three more years and it does us no good to needlessly cripple our president's ability to effectively deal with friends and enemies abroad. He's doing enough damage on his own without Congress piling on, eh?

So if Congress can convince President Obama to launch a serious strike that does some real damage to Assad's force and ramps up our support to non-jihadi rebels to help them defeat Assad, then I think it would be a good idea to support the president's call for authority to act.

People keep saying that it is too late to support non-jihadi rebels, but that is ridiculous. Arm and support those non-jihadi rebels and more recruits will flock to their banner rather than to the banners of the jihadi groups that up to now have been among the most effective fighters in the rebellion. Because of their fanaticism they attracted arms support and because they had arms they attracted Syrian recruits who wanted to fight Assad. If we arm non-jihadis, we erase one advantage the jihadis have and prepare the non-jihadis for the post-Assad fight against jihadis.

And people wrongly believe the jihadis are a majority of the rebels when I've read that they are perhaps 20% of the total.

So don't act on the belief that the jihadi victory is a done deal and we are helpless.

Assad is wounded, outnumbered, reliant on a nearly broke Iran for support, and facing a majority that hates Assad. Assad faces large and capable militaries on his northern (Turkey) and southwestern (Israel) borders who have no love for Assad. Jordan has a small but capable army and is protected by American forces. And as a bonus, Turkey is a NATO state so Syria must be cautious about striking Turkey.

We don't need to invade Syria to defeat Assad. But we do need to act to prevent Assad from surviving in some role or reduced territory, and our participation could end the war sooner and so reduce casualties. Remember, In less than two years of real fighting, Syria has already lost nearly as many people as were lost in Iraq in 8 years of our participation in that war.

If President Obama is willing to act effectively against an actual enemy within a limited scope of action (no Army invasion), he deserves Congressional backing notwithstanding his ineptitude in handling this and other foreign crises during his term of office.