Did we suddenly wake up in bizarro-world, or what? Is this really John Kerry, the anti-Vietnam, anti-Iraq dove, telling us the strikes on Syria are important and necessary? Is this really Barack Obama and Joe Biden, making a case for acts of war against a sovereign nation, without even attempting UN diplomacy or seeking coalition support? It certainly seems that way, but if it were anywhere near April 1, I’d be expecting them to pull of their rubber masks and reveal their true identities to be Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. Only, they actually DID seek diplomatic resolutions through the UN, garner coalition support, and get approval from Congress first.

As the debate rages on, and the president takes his case to the American people, I want to give you my personal Top 10 reasons for not launching strikes against Syria.

First of all, let me say that our writers at RightPundits have done a great job covering this, several good posts with healthy and plentiful commentary can be found, and perhaps some of what I have to say has already been addressed, but I felt compelled to write this, if for no other reason than to state my own thoughts on the matter. As always, people are free to disagree with my opinion, and I welcome your comments.

Reason 1: No imminent threat
To me, this is the most glaring hypocritical contradiction for liberals, who incessantly bleated that Iraq posed no imminent threat to the United States. For months on end, we were lectured by the liberals, and libertarians as well, that the US should never use the force of the military unless there was an imminent threat to national security. Well, Syria simply poses no such threat. The events which took place in Syria, had nothing to do with the US, and didn’t even indicate there might be an imminent threat looming. They have no covert nuclear weapons program, and have made no hostile gestures toward the US, other than simply being opposed to US intervention in the middle east.

Reason 2: No US interest attacked
There has been no embassy attack, they don’t threaten our oil supply, they aren’t setting oil wells on fire or harboring men who launched terror attacks against us. They pose no potential threat to any US interest.

Reason 3: No US ally attacked
Granted, they have made hostile statements toward Israel as well as the US, but they haven’t acted on those statements, and at this point, it’s nothing but empty rhetoric.

Reason 4: No US interest or ally threatened
Other than verbal rhetoric, they pose no potential threat to any US interest or our allies. Israel is the closest ally they could conceivably pose a threat to, and Israel could wipe them off the face of the map in ten minutes, if they ever acted.

Reason 5: Both ‘sides’ are anti-US
Here’s the real bugger, who the hell are we going to bomb? BOTH sides hate the US! A wise man once said, when your enemies are killing each other, leave them be!

Reason 6: Both ‘sides’ are anti-Israel
Again, who are we going to support? Ostensibly, we have two radical Islamic fundamentalist groups at war with each other. Is one Jew-hating bunch of Islamo-Nazis better than the other?

Reason 7: No international support for an attack
Not only is there no international support, many have voiced strong and ominous objections to US intervention. We simply have no idea what the ‘ripple effect’ might be, we may end up provoking all kinds of actions from radical Islam or Russia. I thought the days of “Cowboy Diplomacy” were over? If Bush managed to gather a coalition of 34 nations to go into Iraq and topple Saddam, what the heck kind of “cowboy” is Obama for going it alone and ignoring the rest of the international community regarding Syria? And what happened to this whole idea of “making the case” for war?

Reason 8: No mission objective
What is the purpose of attacking whoever we’re going to attack in Syria? Are we trying to target chemical weapons caches or factories? Are we attacking the regime in power? Are we pitting holes in runways so they can’t use their air force? No one has indicated any sort of idea on what our objecive would be, or how we would determine if that objective had been met.

Reason 9: No protection of innocent lives
Regardless of anything else, we certainly aren’t talking about boots on the ground, and the sad fact of the matter with regard to drones and cruise missiles is, we have no idea who they will ultimately land on. Could be, we end up killing a lot of innocent women and children, we can’t possibly guarantee their safety. Despots who control WMDs will very often place them strategically, so that if you attempt to destroy them, you end up taking out a lot of innocent people in the process. This was one of Bush’s main arguments for why we needed boots on the ground in Iraq, to avoid excessive collateral damage. Clinton learned the hard way about the consequences of blindly lobbing bombs into Sudan, you end up with a lot of embarrassing egg on your face.

Reason 10: No constitutional basis
Last, but certainly not least, I can find absolutely nothing in our Constitution which authorizes the United States to take military action against anyone, on the basis of their own internal conflict. Even as seemingly aggressive as it was, the Bush Doctrine called for jumping on those who harbor terrorists and pose a potential threat to the US and our allies. There is no such indication here. Syria may be rife with terrorists, but until they have done something directly to us or our allies to provoke a response militarily, we are in murky Constitutional waters here.

The thing that really amazes me most, is this sort of Knee-jerk Foreign Policy from Obama, not really based on anything tangible or substantive, just willy-nilly, out of the blue, we need to launch strikes against Syria. We’re told that the US can’t just sit idly by and allow these awful chemical weapons to be used, but we certainly have done that, should I list off all the countries this has happened in, while we did nothing at all? Hell, Saddam did that in Iraq and it wasn’t apparently reason enough for us to go to war there, and he killed about a thousand times more people. I thought Obama was going to talk to these folks, reason with them, address their concerns and bring us all together? That’s what we were all told by his sycophants, that the world was tired of Cowboy Bush & Company, recklessly stomping into sovereign nations and pissing off the radicals. We’re creating more terrorists than we’re killing, was what they said. Suddenly, we’re just supposed to forget all about that, and accept the new war hawk position of people who’ve made their name protesting war?

Bizarro-world, indeed!