Before we get one Middle Eastern crisis figured out, another comes out to bite us. And of course it begs the question, what are we doing there anyway?
First it was the President's speech in Cairo, Egypt, in which he apologized for the previous administration's record and promised that as president, the US and the Middle Eastern Muslim nations would be buddies forever. And to show good faith, pledged to continue sending their annual allowance of $1.50 Billion. However, he then supported the overthrow of their President Hosni Mubarak, who certainly had his faults by US standards, but had nonetheless been our ally for 40 years and maintained a peace agreement with our good friend, Israel. You know what has happened since, with the Muslim Brotherhood taking over, the Egyptian army throwing them out, and hundreds killed in the process.
Then it was their neighbor Libya, where we "led from behind" in a military coup that ousted their President Muammar al-Gaddafi, killed a bunch of their people, and precipitated the Benghazi situation which still remains a mystery.
Now it's Syria, another country which poses no threat to our national security, and where we are on the brink of involving ourselves in still another Middle Eastern conflict which is none of our business. The forces of Al Qaeda, the organization we blame for most of our Mideast troubles, and others we can't even identify, are attempting to overthrow the government of their long-time president, Bashar al Assad. Ol' Bashar didn't particularly like that idea, and has been fighting back for a year or so. Hundreds of thousands of Syrians have been killed in the process, with the most recent being a thousand or so suffering from somebody's use of Sarin gas. But as of this writing, we are still trying to figure out which side it was that used it.
Always eager to involve ourselves on the side of goodness and mercy, we have positioned five US Navy destroyers just off the Syrian coast, and the President is threatening to fire a few cruise missile shots "across the Syrian bow," and then retreat, promising not to get ourselves involved in another Afghanistan-type conflict, where, by the way, we are still killing and being killed for no apparent reason.
In naval parlance, a "shot across the bow" is a warning to another vessel to stop, or the next round will land amidships. But President Obama has stated that we will fire no such follow-up shot. So what's the point? And, what will be the targets of such missile shots? We don't want to hit their poison gas storage facilities, which would spread the stuff all over everywhere. So as of right now, we apparently don't know what, nor who, to shoot.
The President stated long ago that Syrian president Assad "had to go." But if he goes, and if Egypt and Libya can be considered prior examples, the consequence of his departure will probably be worse than if he stays. The President has stated that our missile attacks are in no way intended to sway the outcome of their internal conflict. So again, what is the point?
Perhaps Nashville talk show host Phil Valentine hit upon it this past week when he apparently had an on-the-air revelation. His explanation is that one of the objectives of the Obama administration has always been to transform us into a "green energy" nation, as evidenced by his $80 billion failed taxpayer investments in Solyndra, Fisker Automotive, and others; our use of ethanol diluted gasoline; wind powered electric generators, etc., etc. The public has been reluctant to voluntarily make the green energy changes because of the increased costs involved.
We are still largely dependent upon the Middle East for our oil supply. The domestic exploration of oil shales and the building of the Keystone pipeline could go a long way toward making us energy independent, but the Administration opposes such action. So for now, we must continue to rely upon the Middle East.
If we can keep the Middle Eastern countries stirred up, and the continued navigability of the Suez Canal and the Strait of Hormuz in question, then the price of their oil will skyrocket, and we will be forced to buy the electric cars and wind powered electricity, regardless of the cost. So, like Obamacare, if we won't go quietly, the change will be forced upon us.
Is Phil right? I don't know, but makes about as much sense as anything else. For those of you old enough to remember the Vaudeville comedy team of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy, you may recall Stan's famous line: "Well, here's another nice mess you've gotten me into, Ollie."Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.