This week, Congress is to decide whether America will wage a military attack against dictator Assad in Syria -- a U.S. blow that could strengthen fanatical Sunni rebels trying to topple the Shiite-backed Assad regime.
We hope Congress votes no, in the same manner that Britain's parliament rejected involvement in the horrible religious civil war.
Steven Cook of the Council on Foreign Relations wrote in The Washington Post:
"In an astonishing irony that only the conflict in Syria could produce, American and allied cruise missiles would be degrading the capability of the regime's military units to the benefit of the al-Qaida-linked militants fighting Assad -- the same militants whom U.S. drones are attacking regularly in places such as Yemen."
What a nightmare: Crippling the Assad dictatorship would boost al-Qaida zealots who consider America their supreme enemy, a target of endless terror plots.
Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that if America makes a war strike without U.N. authorization, it would be an illegal "aggression." Putin hinted that Russia might replace any Syrian military equipment destroyed by U.S. missiles.
Apparently, the only reason the White House is demanding an attack is because President Obama previously warned that retaliation would occur if Syria used illegal chemical weapons against its own people. Now that inconclusive news photos showed Syrian women and children dying from an alleged sarin gas attack, the president feels he must keep his word.
The White House did nothing as 100,000 people were killed in Syria's war and 2 million became refugees -- but now the administration says a "red line" has been crossed. Dr. Ivan Eland of the Independent Institute wrote in the Huffington Post:
"Barack Obama fell into a trap of his own rhetoric .... The United States did not intervene militarily in Congo where 5 million people and counting have been killed, in Sudan where the civil war and famine killed 2 million people, and in Rwanda where the Hutu tribe killed 800,000 members of the Tutsi tribe."
This record undercuts the White House claim that America has a "responsibility to protect" victims in war-ravaged lands.
Although the Syrian horror is hideous, polls show that most Americans oppose a U.S. attack. Why take sides in a gory, brutal slaughter far beyond America's control? Why should America be the world's only policeman? Especially, why increase chances for the side that contains suicidal jihadists who deem America the "Great Satan"?As we said before, if Washington has solid evidence that Assad gassed defenseless civilians, America should try to have the dictator dragged before the International Criminal Court on war crime charges.