Conservatives would love for there to be a meaningful comparison between the Iraq War and a Syria intervention. PHOTO: Reuters
False equivalency police, you have your hands full. Conservatives are delighting over the many liberals who were angrily against the Iraq War, but cautiously in favor of an intervention in Syria. Let’s review the facts:
Syria has been in a civil war for two years. The U.S. and the rest of the world have watched, mostly rooting for the rebel forces in their fight against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. There has been little intervention, despite the agitating of conservative hawks like Sen. John McCain. Unconfirmed reports surfaced that the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons against the rebels, and U.S. President Barack Obama stated that the use of chemical weapons is “red line,” and there would be consequences if that line was crossed.
After that statement, there was a horrific attack in Syria that killed roughly 1,400 people using chemical weapons. Mounting evidence shows that this attack was conducted by the Syrian regime. The Obama Administration has indicated that it will likely retaliate against Syria for using chemical weapons, and many liberals have come out in favor.
Iraq was a ground war built on lies. The evidence that Iraq had WMDs (and that they were going to nuke an American city any day now) was fabricated from almost nothing, and the Bush Administration intimidated anyone who argued against their crusade. The war lasted eight years (and it might still be going if John McCain had beaten Barack Obama in 2008), was an utter fiasco more or less from the start, and was clearly meant to line the pockets of defense contractors like Halliburton and Xe (formerly Blackwater) and major oil companies.
Saying that if you were against the Iraq War, your principles must also make you against an intervention in Syria is a little bit like saying that if you didn’t like the George Clooney Batman movie, you can’t like any of the Christian Bale ones either. On principle.