Ralph Peters is Correct Once Again

Too late for Syria: Radicals now rule the rebellion is the latest Piece from Ralph Peters in the New York Post and this one deals with the wisdom or folly of US intervention in Syria. I generally agree with Col. Peters as he is one of the few national security commentators that seems to have a realistic grasp of what America can and should do in the world. His ultimate take here is that the US should not touch the Civil War aspect of Syria with a ten foot pole and we should only act to secure chemical weapons stockpiles if that becomes necessary. I disagree with him that we should have been involved from the outset in an effort to shape post-Civil War Syrian politics.

We (the US and wider West) have no strategic interests in Syria except to see that WMD are not proliferated as a result of the fighting. We can do that by promising and then executing a devastating strike on any party that incontrovertibly makes use of such weapons. Of course, that begs the question of whether the current Western leaders can even credibly issue such a threat. I have no doubt that Russia or China could make such a threat and have it be credible, I am not so sure about the West. At this point we can only hope that the West stays out of Syria and all the R2Pers keep their traps shut before they put more brave young men and women’s lives at risk for their liberal ideals instead of national interests.

7 thoughts on “Ralph Peters is Correct Once Again”

  1. As one who thought Iraq was a good idea (not for the reasons given by the Bush administration) it was done incorrectly. If, and only if, we get involved in an Islamic nation it should only be as enforcers instead of nation/democracy builders. Build permanent military bases consisting of every conceivable form of power we have. Give a CLEAR message of “we will destroy you” instead of this wishy-washy “we will build your sewers and schools if you kinda like you know cooperate with us somewhat.” I like Peters as well, but I don’t agree with too much of what he has to say in this article. There are no legitimate “freedom fighters” in Islam. They are all terrorists or at the very least Fascists. So what side does Peters or anyone else propose we shoud have taken in Syria? Hezbollah? The Muslim Brotherhood? al Quaeda? Assad? I saw none of the above. To think we had other choices if we had only intervened in time is naive and incorret.

    • Peters is recommending we stay the hell out. The whole focus of this piece is that the US has no vital interests at stake in the Syrian civil war therefor we should stay away. A position I heartily agree with. At most, we should wholeheartedly support and back up Israel who does have a stake in the outcome. Israel can more than adequately serve as our proxy in the area because by looking out for their own interests they indirectly support those of the US.

    • Well one thing is clear…..we know what obama meant in his “hot mic” moment with the Russians just before the election. Russia just sent the first round of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to the Syrian gov’t (Al Assad) a missile system which, btw, is about the best one out there. They also sent the first round of MIG fighters to them as well, All without ONE word of objection from president “flexible” who is, along with the EU, arming Syrian rebels….some of whom have very close ties to AQ. Cowboy up, kiddies, we’re headed for another “shadow war” without a peep from anyone we elected or our CiC. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Guess we’ll be told when it’s time to pay the bill for all this hardware.

    • Our only hope is that the damage is not too great by the time Obama leaves office. Given how swimmingly everything has turned out in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan and Obama’s strident anti-war stance pre-election what would possess him to jump headlong into an even larger mess? The only thing I can think of is that he is so wedded to the R2P principle that he cannot or will not see that it is a flawed premise from the get go.

    • Patrick…when did you ever see obama choose US interests over those of the MB and CAIR, either here or abroad? And don’t hold your breath waiting for obama to ask congress for a go to fight in Syria. We’re already there and we’ve already picked and are funding and arming “our” side, whoever the hel they are?

    • I am not saying he will only that he should given his past statements. Of course, if he does send troops into Syria I expect most Republicans to fall all over themselves supporting his “wise, courageous decision to help the Syrian people.” Most Republicans have proven themselves to be as big a bunch of hypocrites as the Democrats after all. The only ones I would expect to argue against any Syrian intervention would be Messrs, Paul and Cruz.

    • That’s not what I got out of reading it. Quote: “President Obama blew an unprecedented chance to aid Syria€™s then-moderate opposition back in 2011.
      We could have helped end the monstrous Assad regime, gaining good will and practical advantage in a hopeful new state.”

      To me, that’s just a bunch of crap. As if there was any moderate opposition in the first place. I’m just too suspicious of Islam I guess. They were only acting moderate in order to get our aid. When we didn’t, they started behaving like the wild animals that they are. Iran 1979, Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, Syria not one of them is better off now and what once were slight threats to our national security are now great threats. So what other Arabic nation should we assist the ‘moderate’ Islamists next in order for al Qaeda or terrorist regimes to take over like they have in all of these?

Comments are closed.