So a new post appeared on Breitbart today by Joel Pollak as an attempted response to Tucker Carlson questioning what are the benefits to America of an intervention in Syria.
Pollak has three points:
- The United States cannot allow Syria to fall into Iranian hands. If it does, Iran will extend its military influence into the Mediterranean, threatening American bases as well as American allies. It will also strengthen its emerging position as a regional power that threatens Israel and the Sunni Arab states.
- The U.S. has a strong interest in punishing the use of chemical weapons. Granted, that is an interest shared by the international community in general, but few nations other than the U.S. are capable of carrying out that punishment. If the U.S. fails to respond to the Syrian regime’s alleged use of chemical weapons, the use of such weapons will become more widespread, including by terrorists.
- The U.S. has an interest in protecting the Kurdish population of the region, which provided the most effective ground forces in fighting the Islamic State (ISIS) in Syria, and which is broadly pro-American. If the U.S. were to abandon the Kurds now, many Kurds would be in danger, and few groups would take risks on America’s behalf in future.
The only significant strategic reason is point 1, which is technically true. As long as the US can maintain a clusterfuck in Syria, they disrupt the middle east and prevent them from uniting under the Iranian banner. This is a legitimate consideration, the question is whether this is even possible at this point. Iran has aligned with Russia and China, Iran is now their Proxy in the middle east, whereas the Saudis are ours.
Point 2 is just liberal gibberish. America is not the world police, and we shouldn’t be wasting money trying to pretend we are. Team America is a costly program, and it is underpinned by the leftist/democratic adoption of the Marxist idea of exporting the world revolution (export democracy). Yeah, problem is Democracy and a $1.45 will get you a Cafe Latte. Point 2 is also a slippery slope fallacy. Notice how it also assumes that one of its presuppositions is true (that Assad actually did it. The Jury is still out, we need hard evidence.)
Point 3 is semi-true. The problem is, America has been fucking over its allies in the middle east for, oh, over a century. Perfidious Albion ain’t got nothing on us. So while this is true, it’s a bit like putting extra makeup on a failed botox job. Not really going to help, and America will just end up with egg on it’s face.
The only benefit to this whole tit for tat is that \%BRENT and \%WTI are going to go up, which is a good thing if you’re an Energy Sector investor. The looming threat of Syrian intervention is really just more Kayfabe GeoDramatics. That doesn’t mean a war couldn’t be sparked off, it could, but that is unlikely to be the actual intention. Of course, the best laid plans of mice and men…