I've about had all I'm going to take from the bouncers of compassion who tell me and others all day, every day, that if we don't bomb Syria then I, we are "isolationists." Exhibit A:
Most Republicans don't want to become, again, the party of isolationists. Not consciously at any rate. Nearly all of them profess fidelity to a strong military, to Israel's security, to stopping Iran's march to a bomb. And opposition to military intervention in Syria—particularly if it's of the pinprick sort being contemplated by the administration—isn't necessarily proof of isolationist sympathies. Henry Kissinger is opposed to intervening in Syria. Henry Kissinger is not, last I checked, an isolationist.
Yet the Syria debate is also exposing the isolationist worm eating its way through the GOP apple.
Insert quotes that do nothing to substantiate the author's seeded premise of isolationism. People will only skim it, anyway:
"The war in Syria has no clear national security connection to the United States and victory by either side will not necessarily bring into power people friendly to the United States." Sen. Rand Paul (R., Ky.).
"I believe the situation in Syria is not an imminent threat to American national security and, therefore, I do not support military intervention. Before taking action, the president should first come present his plan to Congress outlining the approach, cost, objectives and timeline, and get authorization from Congress for his proposal." Sen. Mike Lee (R., Utah).
"When the United States is not under attack, the American people, through our elected representatives, must decide whether we go to war." Rep. Justin Amash (R., Mich.)
Oh my gawd. It's like they're calling for the complete defunding and disband of the entire military. The American people must decide?
Insert Reagan example because Reagan was a sinless conservative creature (immigration) and you are not allowed to disagree and call yourself a conservative, ever.
Such faux-constitutional assertions—based on the notion that only direct attacks to the homeland constitute an actionable threat to national security—would have astonished Ronald Reagan, who invaded Grenada in 1983 without consulting a single member of Congress.
And just for good measure, here's a George H.W. Bush example to shut you up. Are you going to argue with one-termer H. W. Bush? Because that means you like Obama.
It would have amazed George H.W. Bush, who gave Congress five hours notice before invading Panama.
The presupposition is that the right is just like the left and hive mind in thinking. While the left may have been wholly anti-war with a Republican in office and wholly pro-war with a Democrat at the Resolute Desk, it does not mean that Republicans, especially conservatives, lockstep the same. When will conservatives stop comparing other conservatives to the left?
Insert WWII story because the current situation is completely comparable.
Insert progressive language and say that war is "investing" in security abroad. What a deliciously devilish political trick!
Republicans should know, too, that investing in global order deters more dangerous would-be aggressors and creates a world congenial to American trade, security and values.
Investing in shovel-ready jobs, investing in education, investing in green energy, investing in war. I suppose that's considered a "shovel ready job" too? You see, the reason that we have these troubles abroad is because we aren't investing enough abroad. Instead if sending a billion dollars in aid to Egypt, we should send two billion dollars. Instead of sending a billion dollars of aid to Syria, we should send five billion dollars. It's obviously because we're not spending enough billions to band-aid the symptom that these situations occur.
Insert dramatic ending about how listening to any Republican who isn't balls-to-the-wall buckwild about bombing Syria is "perilous." Cue low piano keys:
The junior senator from Kentucky may not know it yet, but, intellectually speaking, he's already yesterday's man. Republicans follow him at their peril.
How dare we not take the bait and blame and toddler-stomp into a civil war where Team Al Qaeda + Rebels face off for control against Team Assad + Hezbollah. How dare we, on the anniversary of 9/11, move to arm and act on behalf of the terrorist entity which orchestrated the worst terror attack ever on U.S. soil. Deja vu, anyone?
P.S. Has anyone actually laid out what U.S. interests are in Syria? Progressive who claim reports of children's deaths abroad are awfully silent on the ones in utero here at home or lives of those sent into harm's way if Kerry gets his wish.