McCaskill: How about American boots on the ground in Syria?

posted at 12:41 pm on April 29, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

I’d have included this as an update to my earlier post on Syria, except (a) that was already a rather long post, and (b) this really deserves its own spot.  Via RCP, Claire McCaskill told CBS’ Bob Schieffer that an American intervention may well include American boots on the ground in Syria:

BOB SCHIEFFER, “FACE THE NATION”: Do either of you at this point think there’s a chance that we would have to put U.S. troops in there or that we would want to?

SEN. CLAIRE MCCASKILL (D-MISSOURI): I don’t think you want to ever rule it out because I think this is, kind of, as — as Saxby said, this thing has really deteriorated, and it’s not really at a tipping point. So I don’t think you ever want to say absolutely not. Obviously, we don’t want to do that unless it’s absolutely necessary.

Earlier in the interview, McCaskill says that the US needs to intervene in order to keep Syria from becoming a failed state where terrorist networks can operate freely. Er, that’s exactly what happened in Libya because of the US and NATO intervention that decapitated the Moammar Qaddafi regime.  Thanks to the power vacuum, terrorist networks took over the entire eastern part of Libya, sacked the US consulate in Benghazi, and then nearly toppled the government in Mali until the French drove al-Qaeda back into Libya.

Besides, who exactly does McCaskill think is opposing Assad in Syria? According to the New York Times (which I linked earlier, too), it’s the very terrorist networks that McCaskill wants to keep from gaining control.  ”Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of,” the Times reports.  The only thing worse in this instance than a failed state would be an al-Qaeda-controlled state.

We might be able to prevent that with a large-scale invasion and an equally large-scale occupation that lasts a decade or more, if we can get enough NATO members to come along with us and sell it to a Congress that has been acting as though Iraq was a huge mistake.  That would include having to quell any insurgencies from Jabhat al-Nusra or related groups, along with fighting Hezbollah again.  Anyone up for that kind of commitment?  Anyone? Bueller?  Bueller?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Sure. Yours.

Blake on April 29, 2013 at 12:41 PM

No.

Limerick on April 29, 2013 at 12:42 PM

“Boots on the Ground” ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Stay out of Syria.

hawkeye54 on April 29, 2013 at 12:43 PM

So I don’t think you ever want to say absolutely not.

Oh yes we do.

Absolutely.

hawkeye54 on April 29, 2013 at 12:44 PM

Peace Prize!

apostic on April 29, 2013 at 12:46 PM

NO we do not, period!
L

letget on April 29, 2013 at 12:46 PM

This is the new norm. Take advantage of it as Reagan did during the Iran/Iraq war. Be sure to provide plenty of ammunition and both sides will be weaker by the time they’re done with their sectarian, tribal, religious or whatever they are fighting about from the 6th century.

Deano1952 on April 29, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Tally so for y/n 0-6

Limerick on April 29, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Well if Claire says it, I guess I’d better brush up on my Levantine Arabic.
At least this 3rd world hell-hole has a beach.

LincolntheHun on April 29, 2013 at 12:48 PM

At this point, what difference does it make?

Lily on April 29, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Unfunded war?

Philly on April 29, 2013 at 12:51 PM

We might be able to prevent that with a large-scale invasion and an equally large-scale occupation that lasts a decade or more, if we can get enough NATO members to come along with us and sell it to a Congress that has been acting as though Iraq was a huge mistake. That would include having to quell any insurgencies from Jabhat al-Nusra or related groups, along with fighting Hezbollah again. Anyone up for that kind of commitment? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

Might I also add that we have had our military engaged in combat operations for nearly twelve years at this point. So, as things ramp down in Afghanistan we’re going to put boots on the ground in Syria? McCaskill is one stupid gal.

Happy Nomad on April 29, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Nope. America doesn’t have the patience or the money to nation-build like they did in the late 40s and 50s. Our attention span is way to short now so why waste blood and treasure just to let the Democrats demagogue another war? So get used to standing by and watching people get slaughtered. Toughen up America. Give pieces a chance.

rhombus on April 29, 2013 at 12:53 PM

To do this you know Barry will go to the UN for sanction to go in. If he does the administration will issue the following ROE…

An American soldier is to stand between two men with machine guns and tell them to behave.

Don’t try to say that won’t be the case.

Limerick on April 29, 2013 at 12:53 PM

McCaskill says that the US needs to intervene in order to keep Syria from becoming a failed state where terrorist networks can operate freely.

Except that Syria was a state where terrorist networks operated freely.

rbj on April 29, 2013 at 12:54 PM

American boots on the ground? Well, yes, if the Syrians are short of footwear, why not? In a civil war there’s a lot broken glass and somebody could get hurt stepping on that in bare feet. Would they like to have some day-of-the-week numbered socks as well?

YiZhangZhe on April 29, 2013 at 12:55 PM

No more American blood and treasure to help al quaeda overthrow legitimate governments. Why should we shed American blood and pour more American tax payer funds into an are where the inhabitants are clearly …. mad with blood lust?

The fact is that we have credible reports that the rebels are backed and infiltrated by al quaeda. Who’s side are we on and what, exactly, are we trying to accomplish? Also, the Muslim Brotherhood has made an all to predictable appearance in the region. That’s caused destabilization and a loss of personal freedom and democracy in Egypt.

Perhaps Ms. McCaskill should put her own ‘boots on the ground’ in Syria and refrain from writing any more checks on American blood and tax dollars.

thatsafactjack on April 29, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Where do these people keep their brains? Certainly not in their heads……

avagreen on April 29, 2013 at 12:58 PM

At this point, what difference does it make?

Lily on April 29, 2013 at 12:49 PM

The mind-numbing incompetence has to be over before you can make that comment.

We’re only at the midpoint right now as the rat-eared coward is trying to slither out from under his “consequences for using chemical weapons” comments. He’s still trying to prop up the idea that the rebels are freedom-loving democrats because it fits the narrative of the Arab Spring as it was rolled out. But in nation after nation the Arab Spring has turned into a bust where Islamic fundamentalists have crushed all others. If I didn’t know any better I’d say the rat-eared coward with the Muslim name was helping set up a global caliphate.

Happy Nomad on April 29, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Sure. Yours.
Blake on April 29, 2013 at 12:41 PM

My sentiments exactly. Let this cow spend her own blood and treasure keeping Muslims from killing each other. Since when did it become America’s job?

Cleombrotus on April 29, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Except that Syria was (and still is) a state where terrorist networks operated freely.

rbj on April 29, 2013 at 12:54

PM

Little addition, hope you don’t mind.

D-fusit on April 29, 2013 at 1:02 PM

An American soldier is to stand between two men with machine guns and tell them to behave.

Don’t try to say that won’t be the case.

Limerick on April 29, 2013 at 12:53 PM

A UNARMED American soldier. Becuase, don’t you know, if “military-style” firearms are evil then the real thing must be really bad.

Happy Nomad on April 29, 2013 at 1:02 PM

Here’s how this should work.

Whenever a politician suggests or submits some sort of legislation that would cause American soldiers to be dispatched to some god-forsaken part of the planet, that politician instantly becomes the political officer of that deployment, and ‘volunteers’ to stay at or near the frontline as long as hostilities are in progress. Office staff included, along with any co-sponsors of the bill.

Imagine this: “Maj. Gen. McCaskill, Political Corps”

BobMbx on April 29, 2013 at 1:02 PM

BobMbx on April 29, 2013 at 1:02 PM

And their first born must also serve in the Infantry in the deployed area of operation! No exceptions.

D-fusit on April 29, 2013 at 1:05 PM

When McCaskill or other Ruling class Progressive says….”How about American boots on the ground in Syria”?

Limited Government Conservative dog whistle hears….

“Hells Bells Bob, of course we’re going in to another war in the Middle East to set up this Caliphate. We’re all freegin Muslim sympathizers in D.C. and we’re bound and determine to help these enemies of the West have a foothold on that region. And for sure, we’re going after Jordan and the jewel of Mecca next. The Hussein familia and the Sauds be damned.”

PappyD61 on April 29, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Define winning, and the exit strategy.

What is victory? When is the homecoming parade?

Wander on April 29, 2013 at 1:06 PM

Just pretend its GW promoting this. You’ll be okay with it then. No need for this packaged “outrage” due to her being a Democrat. Be consistent.

The GOP will betray you

True_King on April 29, 2013 at 1:07 PM

Senator McCain approves this message.

Fenris on April 29, 2013 at 1:08 PM

Put on a pair of boots and grab a rifle sweetheart. I’ve already went to two of your wars in the last decade, you’ll lead this expedition. It never ceases to amaze me the one’s who are most willing to get us into war are the one’s that never have the guts to go first.

TulsAmerican on April 29, 2013 at 1:08 PM

Why should we intervene? Can we prove that a majority of the factions fighting Assad (a terrorist) are not Islamic extremists who want us dead? Will those alleged secular factions coalesce to form a functional government?

Stay away. When this nightmare ends, a civil war begins.

Philly on April 29, 2013 at 1:08 PM

Even if it were in our national security interests, which it ain’t, we know the Democrats wouldn’t let us win any war.

Little Boomer on April 29, 2013 at 1:09 PM

Those darned neocons.

blink on April 29, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Neocons are not driving this. Foreign policy-focused RINOs and Democrats are driving this. I’m guessing McCain and McCaskill, privy to the intelligence, have figured out that Iran is using its Syrian client to set up these isolated nerve gas attacks as a test case, a way to gauge American (and allied) response to Iran’s nuclear program as it nears fruition.

Think about it. What good is a WMD if you don’t take advantage of the ‘MD’ part? The Syrians have only used Sarin in small, isolated instances so far, in small enough amounts that evidence of its use can be arguably inconclusive.

The Russians and Iranians have no doubt convinced Assad that he needn’t worry about the Americans. Truth is, they don’t know themselves and very badly want to find out.

Of course, President Obama doesn’t have to play this game. He could contact Assad via diplomatic channels and threaten cruise missile and bomber strikes aimed at every WMD stockpile in Syria, starting with the one cleverly hidden in the basement of Assad’s presidential palace, starting in one hour. That would work, I think.

troyriser_gopftw on April 29, 2013 at 1:09 PM

Guess this means that Claire McCaskill has been forever removed from the Code Pink Christmas Card list.

pilamaye on April 29, 2013 at 1:11 PM

Democrat, out of Missouri?

Them Democrats, a warmongering lot, no?

coldwarrior on April 29, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Why bother when all we have to do is give Israel a green light?

slickwillie2001 on April 29, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Might I also add that we have had our military engaged in combat operations for nearly twelve years at this point. So, as things ramp down in Afghanistan we’re going to put boots on the ground in Syria? McCaskill is one stupid gal.

Happy Nomad on April 29, 2013 at 12:53 PM

Why does everyone (Republicans: George W, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, etc…..Democrats: McCaskill) think it is so Vitally Important to send USA troops across the world fighting another war…….yet things that happen in our very own backyard (open borders, etc) are dismissed as secondary, unimportant issues…..issues that can be “debated” in public with both parties over many years…….

Why such the Urgency of sending USA troops so quickly into harms’ way? Why the urgency in getting involved in another country’s business by sending troops?

The US quickly sent troops to Jordan because it was deemed so Vitally Important that we secure Jordan’s open borders with Syria?

Why?

Why the march rush to get involved in other countries while flat-out ignoring our own constitutional requirements to take care of our own business?

ColtsFan on April 29, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Obama has worked hard to promote the enemies of the United States and Israel. The Muslim Brotherhood and other terrorists groups. I think this is one reason he will not suggest we go into Syria. He/Obama likes and respects Assad and doesn’t want him overthrown.

Obama is a terrorist lover and a hater of our Constitutional Republic.

He promised to fundamentally change our country and the little homosexual has done just that!

Makes me sick!

Delsa on April 29, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Even if it were in our national security interests, which it ain’t, we know the Democrats wouldn’t let us win any war.

Little Boomer on April 29, 2013 at 1:09 PM

Going into Afghanistan and Iraq were clearly in our national interests not matter what the leftists say as they politicized the wars and disgustingly enough the war dead.

When GWB was in office, watching Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid high five their Democrat colleagues whenever the death toll ticked over to a new milestone was repulsive. Then the rat-eared coward took over and utterly ignored Afghanistan other than one photo-op to Dover just before essentially sending thousands of Americans to their deaths because the super-smart rat-eared bastard didn’t have an exit strategy that wouldn’t make him look like the coward and appeaser he is. He killed those troops through half-assed measures, a passive ROE, and not so benign neglect.

Happy Nomad on April 29, 2013 at 1:18 PM

1). Fence it in.

2). Erect grandstands.

3). Profit!

OldEnglish on April 29, 2013 at 1:19 PM

At least this 3rd world hell-hole has a beach.

LincolntheHun on April 29, 2013 at 12:48 PM

How’s the surf there?

Socratease on April 29, 2013 at 1:19 PM

You lead the way Claire de loon…

dentarthurdent on April 29, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Let’s just send in all the gay battalions.

crrr6 on April 29, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Happy Nomad on April 29, 2013 at 1:18 PM

The last part of this post somehow got cut off.

Bottom line: Syria, Lybia, or any of these places where the Arab Spring is failing are not in the national interest. Arming the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is just nuts because we could well find ourselves someday soon facing our own weapons in a combat situation.

Happy Nomad on April 29, 2013 at 1:21 PM

The mind-numbing incompetence has to be over before you can make that comment.

We’re only at the midpoint right now as the rat-eared coward is trying to slither out from under his “consequences for using chemical weapons” comments. He’s still trying to prop up the idea that the rebels are freedom-loving democrats because it fits the narrative of the Arab Spring as it was rolled out. But in nation after nation the Arab Spring has turned into a bust where Islamic fundamentalists have crushed all others. If I didn’t know any better I’d say the rat-eared coward with the Muslim name was helping set up a global caliphate.

Happy Nomad on April 29, 2013 at 12:59 PM

The mind-numbing incompetence will never be over.

It isn’t over in Bengahzi and it won’t be over here. We can send troops, but if we do, they will have ROE’s that will ensure we can’t be successful and they will hate us because we didn’t help. If we don’t send any troops we will get the same people coming into power that were going to win before we went in, and everyone over there will still hate us.

In fact, this is just like Benghazi because the time to have made an actual difference was some time ago but the clowns in the head clown-car figured that, just like Benghazi, if they waited long enough they wouldn’t even have to try to help.

So, at this point, what difference does it make? I guess you could say it only makes a difference to the brave souls that wouldn’t have to go over to that hell-hole and die so the CIC can wave his Peace Prize around.

Lily on April 29, 2013 at 1:24 PM

How’s the surf there?

Socratease on April 29, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Lieutenant Colonel William “Bill” Kilgore: “Sunni don’t surf!”

apostic on April 29, 2013 at 1:24 PM

How’s the surf there?

Socratease on April 29, 2013 at 1:19 PM

Once ya wade out past the floaters…

The local surfer chicks, not much to look at, I suppose.

coldwarrior on April 29, 2013 at 1:24 PM

Didn’t Clinton and Petraeus already arm the rebels? Keep both sides well equipped until it gets quiet. I don’t want either side to win.

DanMan on April 29, 2013 at 1:24 PM

Why does everyone (Republicans: George W, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, etc…..Democrats: McCaskill) think it is so Vitally Important to send USA troops across the world fighting another war…….yet things that happen in our very own backyard (open borders, etc) are dismissed as secondary, unimportant issues…..issues that can be “debated” in public with both parties over many years…….

[..snip..]

Why the march rush to get involved in other countries while flat-out ignoring our own constitutional requirements to take care of our own business?

ColtsFan on April 29, 2013 at 1:18 PM

I’ve pondered similar questions, though in a different context. My best explanation is that international war fighting stuff is exciting … important meetings with generals and foreign diplomats, prancing in front of the cameras and co-authoring a chapter in history. In other words, ego and “career development”.

YiZhangZhe on April 29, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Sit back, relax, watch Hezbollah kill off Al Qaeda and vice versa.

blammm on April 29, 2013 at 1:26 PM

All that fat on your head is eating the last two braincells in your head, Clairebear.
Give both sides gas and pop some popcorn. The more dead the better.

RovesChins on April 29, 2013 at 1:28 PM

McCaskill: How about American boots on the ground in Syria?

Finally the Donks want to go after Saddam’s WMD…

Bruno Strozek on April 29, 2013 at 1:29 PM

We have now entered a phase in our republic of a permanent state of war…just like the Romans did before they ultimately collapsed…

PatriotRider on April 29, 2013 at 1:31 PM

The answer to the question posed is absolutely not.

Throat Wobbler Mangrove on April 29, 2013 at 1:31 PM

The US quickly sent troops to Jordan because it was deemed so Vitally Important that we secure Jordan’s open borders with Syria?

Why?

ColtsFan on April 29, 2013 at 1:18 PM

The US didn’t do that, the rat-eared coward did that and informed Congress.

I’m not willing to get in the middle of all the Ron Paul looniness about rolling up our borders and ignoring the rest of the world as isolationists (Paulbots refer to it as non-intervention) but there has to be some fights not worth expending American blood and treasure. Rat holes in the middle east where the factional fighting has been going on for centuries are among them.

To a certain degree I blame Congress. By the Constitution, only Congress can declare a war and the last time they did that was after Pearl Harbor. If McCaskill is so eager to put troops in harm’s way in Syria, let her get Harry Reid to put aside the debates on grabbing guns, normalizing sodomy, and giving the illegals amnesty and let’s see the bill declaring that troops in Syria are in the national interest and lets have that record of who voted in favor of this action.

Happy Nomad on April 29, 2013 at 1:33 PM

PatriotRider on April 29, 2013 at 1:31 PM

1984…30 years late.

Orwell was right.

coldwarrior on April 29, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Hey, how about YOUR KIDS go over and FIGHT on the sands of the hellish Syrian deserts Senators?

…..and I’m not talking about some cushy Academy generated back office job over in Tel Aviv or at Hilton in Amman. I’m talking out in the field with bleeding heroes, eating sand and sweating.

Ruling classer Kids first. Lead by example your Progressive scum.

PappyD61 on April 29, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Sit back, relax, watch Hezbollah kill off Al Qaeda and vice versa.

blammm on April 29, 2013 at 1:26 PM

I’ve thought this before……why intervene? However, there are Coptic Christians in Syria.

avagreen on April 29, 2013 at 1:38 PM

I’ve pondered similar questions, though in a different context. My best explanation is that international war fighting stuff is exciting … important meetings with generals and foreign diplomats, prancing in front of the cameras and co-authoring a chapter in history. In other words, ego and “career development”.

YiZhangZhe on April 29, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Good point.

And I have reached the conclusion that Doing the right Constitutional thing is often hard…..and doing the wrong, unconstitutional thing is often easy.

It is easy to play soldier and drop bombs on a 3rd world country…..with all the advantages of a superpower status.

It is harder to look into the mirror every day and ask, “but is this the Right, constitutional thing to do?”

It is hard to ask, “how does this course of action affect future generations.”

In short, most politicians suffer from the “Hezekiah complex” . Note the last verse: “……in MY lifetime“……

The context of that verse for Hezekiah is: forget about the future consequences of your decision…..just ignore the effects your decision will have on successive generations,……”MY LIFETIME”.

That verse reveals a near-sighted, prideful Hezekiah who was only focuseed on MY LIFETIME.

Unfortunate back then, but the same principle applies today.

ColtsFan on April 29, 2013 at 1:38 PM

PappyD61 on April 29, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Agree with your comment overall – but quite a few Academy grads have been killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan.

dentarthurdent on April 29, 2013 at 1:39 PM

I’ve thought this before……why intervene? However, there are Coptic Christians in Syria.

If we do intervene, it won’t be to protect the Coptic Christians. Generally, where ever else we’ve intervened, it typically hasn’t gone well for Christians.

hawkeye54 on April 29, 2013 at 1:41 PM

The US didn’t do that, the rat-eared coward did that and informed Congress.

I’m not willing to get in the middle of all the Ron Paul looniness about rolling up our borders and ignoring the rest of the world as isolationists (Paulbots refer to it as non-intervention) but there has to be some fights not worth expending American blood and treasure. Rat holes in the middle east where the factional fighting has been going on for centuries are among them.

To a certain degree I blame Congress. By the Constitution, only Congress can declare a war and the last time they did that was after Pearl Harbor. If McCaskill is so eager to put troops in harm’s way in Syria, let her get Harry Reid to put aside the debates on grabbing guns, normalizing sodomy, and giving the illegals amnesty and let’s see the bill declaring that troops in Syria are in the national interest and lets have that record of who voted in favor of this action.

Happy Nomad on April 29, 2013 at 1:33 PM

I am not a fan of Ron Paul ….due to his past “Truther” statements. And I have never voted for him in the primaries either.

But I must confess that I am simply amazed at how Quickly the US (from both political parties) gets involved in the business of other countries.

I am saddened at this mad rush, “stop the presses, we need to send US troops overseas to secure this country’s border”….

ColtsFan on April 29, 2013 at 1:44 PM

“stop the presses, we need to send US troops overseas to secure this country’s border”….

ColtsFan on April 29, 2013 at 1:44 PM

A little bit of biting irony in there.

Can’t even secure our own borders…yet…

coldwarrior on April 29, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Caskill just missed an opportunity to shut up, as always.’Smart power’ decided already he’s not going to intervene, which, for once, I agree with. Let them kill each other there for as long as they could handle it.

jimver on April 29, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Soon, very soon, the slaughter in Syria will be worse, much worse, than the mess we made of Iraq. There will come a point when the people of the world will look at Syria and remember fondly what Bush did to Iraq. Someday in the near future, the world will see the gutters full of blood in Syria, then look up to us and shout, “Save Them” and we should look down and whisper, “No.” They had a choice, all of them.

Apologies to Alan Moore.

BohicaTwentyTwo on April 29, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Sure. Yours.

Blake on April 29, 2013 at 12:41 PM

:)

jimver on April 29, 2013 at 1:49 PM

If Syria doesn’t go well (whether we intervene or not), it will still be Bush’ fault…

shinty on April 29, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Democratic Senators from blueish-purple states who are are not up for re-election for six years can sometimes talk like “neeeeooohhhh-khaaaaannnnss” and get away with it.

It means nothing unless she is floating a balloon for Dear Leader to see what the other side says and how much “bi-partisan” support he might be able to get for something he likely has no intention of doing anyway.

The only American boots that will step in foot in Syria, and a few are probably there already, are Special Forces reconnaissance and targeting guys. Primarily in preparation for drone usage and maybe dropping a few bombs, in a face saving gesture after Assad stepped across and trampled all over Comrade O’s “red-line”.

That said, I don’t have a problem having a few deep undercover CIA and Special Ops guys there to try to find and keep tabs on whatever WMDs are in the area. I’m sure Israel is doing that, too. And possibly Britain and France.

Keeping Assad’s (and possibly Saddam’s) WMDs out of the hands of jihadists is our only interest in Syria.

farsighted on April 29, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Hate to be the one to stir up the cockroaches – but it’s interesting that no libtards seem willing to defend a Dem talking about putting troops in syria….. hmmmmmmmm

dentarthurdent on April 29, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Can’t even secure our own borders…yet…

The operative word really is “Won’t”, not

“Can’t”

Other countries are more successful at securing borders because they WANT to. Our government doesn’t, at least all that much.

hawkeye54 on April 29, 2013 at 1:56 PM

If Syria doesn’t go well (whether we intervene or not), it will still be Bush’ fault…

Because of “Sequestration”!!

hawkeye54 on April 29, 2013 at 1:57 PM

So we have Al Qaeda fighting against Assad’s corruptocracy. Sounds like a win-win, to me. Lets prop up whomever is losing at the moment, and let them kill as many of each other as possible.

When your enemies are destroying each other, best not to interrupt the process.

iurockhead on April 29, 2013 at 1:59 PM

“opposition good guys!”

I think that’s the El Waldo brigade, holed up somewhere. Waiting to be found.

BL@KBIRD on April 29, 2013 at 2:04 PM

So Claire thinks now – post “red line” sarin Syria – is finally a good time to put boots on the ground…

These Dems are either dangerous morons, psychotic or both.

Odie1941 on April 29, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Hate to be the one to stir up the cockroaches – but it’s interesting that no libtards seem willing to defend a Dem talking about putting troops in syria….. hmmmmmmmm

dentarthurdent on April 29, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Because they know it isn’t going to happen. The President is the worst kind of coward (one who doesn’t give a damn about killing Americans through inaction but is unwilling to be bold enough to win). The nation is war weary. The troops are war weary. There is in discernible national interest at stake. And most importantly, the Dems do not want to have started another war on the eve of an election year where they are vulnerable in losing control in the Senate thanks in large part to stupid cows like McCaskill who only won her last election because of stupidity and arrogance on the part of Akin and his pal Mike Huckabee.

Happy Nomad on April 29, 2013 at 2:07 PM

I detest her so much, I have rewritten my comments 6 times, and finally decided she was not worth my getting banned for the profanity I would use to comment about her. I am so sorry that she won over Akin, even with his stupid rape comments, that, well let us just say I feel sorry for Missouri right now.

Yes, she is being used to raise a trial balloon by Obama, since she is so good to him. Just look how she was the poster child for O-Care, right behind Nancy…

seymour01 on April 29, 2013 at 2:09 PM

I’ve thought this before……why intervene? However, there are Coptic Christians in Syria.

If we do intervene, it won’t be to protect the Coptic Christians. Generally, where ever else we’ve intervened, it typically hasn’t gone well for Christians.

hawkeye54 on April 29, 2013 at 1:41 PM

All this I know….I was talking about my own reservations about just standing back and letting both branches of terrorism kill each other, which takes away some of my glee about this idea.

avagreen on April 29, 2013 at 2:14 PM

1. The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.

2. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.

3. Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress.

4. Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.
– Ronald Reagan

VorDaj on April 29, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Based on who would take over after Assad is “booted” out, Miz McCaskill should wear combat boots and a burqa on the road to Damascus, and take mama Tsarnaeva with her.

You want boots on the ground, Senator? How about we put in a resolution at the UN Security Council that Syria must pull all its troops out of Lebanon by X deadline, or else. Israel would love to get the bomb lobbers off its northern border, and France has strong ties to the Lebanese Christians, so the two of them could enforce a get-out-of-Lebanon UN resolution, and everybody stops at the Lebanon-Syria border. With an independent Lebanon as a buffer state, American and Israeli interests would be much safer.

America doesn’t have any friends in Syria, so letting our enemies kill each other there is fine with us.

Steve Z on April 29, 2013 at 2:15 PM

US troops dropped into an ancient tribal warfare? Again?

NO.

Let them wipe each other out and then deal with the winner.

PattyJ on April 29, 2013 at 2:17 PM

McCaskill: How about American boots on the ground in Syria?

For a second there I thought she said American boobs.

I was going to say, why waste them on Syria? We need them here at home!

UltimateBob on April 29, 2013 at 2:18 PM

For a second there I thought she said American boobs.

I was going to say, why waste them on Syria? We need them here at home!

Depends on your definition of boobs. Anatomical or intellectual?

Agree on the former, but not the latter.

hawkeye54 on April 29, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Future Quislings for the Restored Caliphate.

profitsbeard on April 29, 2013 at 2:25 PM

I’ve thought this before……why intervene? However, there are Coptic Christians in Syria.

avagreen on April 29, 2013 at 1:38 PM

Have you seen what is happening to Coptic Christians in Egypt, where we intervened diplomatically, and Libya, where we intervened militarily?

Any intervention taken by this administration will not help Coptic Christians or even Muslims from different sects or tribes.

Resist We Much on April 29, 2013 at 2:26 PM

I was talking about my own reservations about just standing back and letting both branches of terrorism kill each other, which takes away some of my glee about this idea.

Our intervention won’t completely stop that anyway, and we’ll have our own ham-strung troops drawing ire and fire from both sides, even those whom we are supposed to be allied. See all the deadly incidents involving “friendly” Afghans for example.

hawkeye54 on April 29, 2013 at 2:30 PM

UltimateBob on April 29, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Boobs on the ground?

C’mon, Bob…tell me…you’ve met my ex-wife?

coldwarrior on April 29, 2013 at 2:37 PM

The scumhag should not have been kept…wait, the Rs are such dummies.

Schadenfreude on April 29, 2013 at 2:38 PM

Sit back, relax, watch Hezbollah kill off Al Qaeda and vice versa.

blammm on April 29, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Rat holes in the middle east where the factional fighting has been going on for centuries are among them.

Happy Nomad on April 29, 2013 at 1:33 PM

That’s the bottom line, IMHO. Since before even M*h*mm*d arrived on the scene in the Middle East roughly 1500 years ago, the tribes have been warring against not only enemies, but each other as well. It’s in their genes, apparently. When there’s peace, or even a lull, their heads explode from the internal pressure, caused by a lack of an outlet to relieve it.

No matter what we do or don’t do, we will be wrong and hated. And if every human being not living in the ME were to suddenly die, in only a matter of days or even hours they’d be turning their weapons on each other again, and even their own fathers and brothers, wives mothers and sisters, with ferocity.

And while I feel badly about Israel’s situation, I think they are well equipped to defend themselves at this point, and we don’t need to send soldiers over there to help them. I’d build thousands of drones and donate them to Israel’s cause, then start shoring up our own borders and prepare to defend our own to the death if necessary.

Let the Middle East implode and either become civilized or kill each other off, and leave us out of it because it’s insane to spend one more moment on idiots whose only purpose in life is to kill someone….anyone….as many as possible.

UPNorthWolf on April 29, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Aw, c’mon….she knows Obama just loves to drone on and on….

NO BOOTS!

ProfShadow on April 29, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Boots on the ground in Syria?

Before I agree… which side would they be on?

The Government using chemical weapons on their citizens who want to kill us? Of course not.

The Rebels, with links to Al Qaeda who want us dead? I’d hope not.

You want us to be a new third side in the war fighting against both established sides?

Should I pretend the American people have the stomach for a war like that, given how long it will last, the cost in lives and resources, and the constant disaster of fighting somewhere that we aren’t wanted and are forced on a daily basis to kill civilians?

I can’t see a situation where boots on the ground helps.

A bit of bombing against the government as a “don’t use chemical weapons”? Yeah, I could support taking out some high priority/profile military targets as we declared the “red line” and they crossed it.

But boots on the ground is only useful if we’re going to try to take the land… and I don’t see that any viable government in Syria will be one we should or would want to support.

gekkobear on April 29, 2013 at 2:56 PM

News that is not being covered much is Iraq is about ready to explode…its going to be Sunni vs. Shia all over the Middle East!
(Where in Syria are Saddam’s secret weapons hiding?)….

albill on April 29, 2013 at 2:59 PM

Good. Someone give McCaskill a helmet and rifle. She can go first.

Sure as hell know that Barry won’t be “leading”.

GarandFan on April 29, 2013 at 3:00 PM

wheres code pink with sheehan camping out in front of her house.
oh, getting stoned in colorado.
never mind.

losarkos on April 29, 2013 at 3:25 PM

No effin’ way.

jake49 on April 29, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Sure, Claire

Get Jane Fonda another nut case commie Democrat with you, she has anti aircraft weapons experiance to boot your your boots.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on April 29, 2013 at 3:45 PM

Why sure, Ms. Moonbat. Put ‘em on and go.

Gordy on April 29, 2013 at 5:03 PM

If by boots you mean low-yield nuclear detonations, then I’m in.

Odysseus on April 29, 2013 at 5:11 PM

Comment pages: 1 2