Have you heard the news? There's a humanitarian disaster unfolding in a Leppo because an evil dictator is dropping bombs and airstrikes on his own people. Civilians are being killed in a war. We've got to do something, and by something I mean bomb the winning side because reasons (which will prolong the war actually).
Ugh. Pothead and former governor of New Mexico or somewhere Gary Johnson had it right when he asked America, "What's a leppo?" What indeed. The American public knows jack shit about anything going on in the Middle East full stop, leaving few checks against the foreign policy inclinations of a bunch of hacks and (((lobbyists))) in Washington. A Jacksonian policy would be best for the country and the world but that is yet to be realized. If the public are simply too uninformed, gaslighted, or stupid to decide on foreign policy, there should be none, lest command of the arms of the state pass into the hands of bandits and psychopaths.
But speaking of foreign wars... Does anyone care about the US-backed Saudi invasion of Yemen? Does anyone realize that the anti-Assad coalition includes jihadists? Nah. It's all about saving Aleppo from... uh... war! Here is basically the "muh leppo" casus belli being advanced by liberals and neocons:
Because the Syrian government is defending itself against a rebellion and people in areas held by rebel forces are getting killed as a result of its military operations, the United States should engage in acts of war against Syria on behalf of the rebels. It is the right thing to do because people we don’t side with are killing people our media classifies as civilians. Here are some pictures of bloodied children, especially fair-skinned ones. Also Russia backs Syria so we should oppose it because Russia is the permanent enemy of freedom and democracy.
People who advocate for the United States to escalate the war in Syria (which is currently being won by the de jure government) should be called what they are: traitors and lunatics. People who think we should assist a rebellion which includes Islamists against a government which poses no threat to us (and which had in fact done well keeping a lid on sectarian conflict for years) should be viciously cross-examined until they confess their agenda. People who are willing to use pictures of bloodied or dead Levantine children to convince us to ally with Bedouin salafists are engaging in levels of duplicity that shouldn't even be possible. People whose century-long neurotic obsession with destroying Russia clouds their impartiality on issues of American foreign policy should be parted with.
And what exactly is the end goal here? Do these people actually want the rebels and their Islamist allies to win? Is this part of the ongoing Western dildojihad against Russia for being an illiberal country? Or are people just having a kneejerk reaction to propaganda in the worst way possible? It's probably a little of each, but the same people who opposed (and even those who supported) the War in Iraq should know better than to try this again after what happened in Iraq (and Afghanistan and Libya). Because what makes the war drumbeat for Alawite blood so jarring is that it includes both Democratic bass and (anti-Trump) Republican snare.
Let's bring back an old term and give it some new flair. People who want war in Syria on behalf of the loser Islamist rebels are jingocucks. It's jingoism because they've suddenly discovered they like the idea of using American military power now that Donald Trump is about to take it away from them. It's cucking because unless you are an Islamist or an overseas Israeli your reasons for wanting to smash an Arab nationalist government amount to your fee-fees being hurt by blatant propaganda or being an idiot.
What jingocucks don’t seem to get is that escalating the war in Syria by blocking Assad from crushing the rebels will lead to not only more violence, death, and destruction, but more of it over an extended period of time. This is precisely the opposite of their supposed goal. What happens if in our attempts to enforce a no-fly zone we shoot down a Russian fighter jet? What if in bombing Assad's airfields we kill a Russian or Iranian officer? What if by damaging Assad's ability to attack the rebels we reduce his ability to defend people living in government-held areas. What if the humanitarian intervention leads to a bloody stalemate or causes previously less-ravaged parts of the country to become destroyed? I guess there will be more pictures of sad children.
Worse still, all of this will intensify the ongoing "refugee crisis" which threatens the security and demographic composition of Greater Europe by flushing millions of religiously medieval and bio-culturally alien peoples north and west into our countries. All of the jingocucks live in Western countries anyway so this will be their problem soon enough. Were there not enough terror attacks from people of Muslim origin over the last few years? Wasn’t the "islamophobic" Donald Trump elected president of the United States? Clearly this foreign policy program is backfiring. Don't you know when you've lost?
Jingocucks want to invade the world and invite the world, all because a bunch of media skypes showed them pictures taken by Islamists of bloody children. They need a permanent time-out. Aleppo is worth nothing to the United States but it is worth more than you. If you want to bomb the shit out of the middle of nowhere so some more terrorists can immigrate to Europe and the United States you deserve to be hit by a North African truck driver.
Also published at Atlantic Centurion.