It’s rare for me to agree with Rand Paul, but I’ve grown increasingly uncomfortable with the sabre-rattling going on in Washington about Syria. You simply cannot watch Fog of War or Fahrenheit 9/11 without knowing that many members of Congress are deeply funded by the military-industrial complex. And now, just as the war in Afganistan is winding down, low-and-behold, the need us in Syria!
Glenn Garvin penned an important commentary this week in which he argues that, unless we say no to this war, we are condemning ourselves to an eternal war in the Middle East:
Is a dangerous partisan divide really destroying the American government? It’s pretty hard to discern that from the policy debate on Syria, where our two-party system divides like this: Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky on one side, and everybody else on the other.
Paul argues that there are no clear good guys in Syria; that the recent U.S. track record in the Middle East — from Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya — suggests that nobody in the American government has a credible understanding of the region’s political nuances, and that any U.S. intervention is likely to create more problems than it will solve.