Traitors,
such as David French, who would sacrifice American life, limb and treasure to
please their Jewish masters, are out in force with two new excuses as to why
America must remain in Syria. You can see it in the article he wrote under the
title: “Trump's Decision to Leave a Token Force in Syria Is More Significant
Than You think,” published on February 22, 2019 in National Review Online.
Notwithstanding
the proven reality that Israel wants America to stand as a tripwire behind
which Israeli troops can hide — given that in
Syria, they will not have Palestinian or Jewish children behind whom to hide
while they commit their habitual genocidal crimes —
David French has come up with a new way to talk rubbish so as to promote
Israel's interests. Two illustrations will help clarify what French is
trying to accomplish now.
First
illustration: David French is suggesting that, “the presence of American
soldiers will act as a profound deterrent to American enemies.” Think so? Since
when has the presence of American soldiers deterred those who wish to kill
American soldiers? If David French did not mean to sound serious, you'd think
he is making a bad joke. Unfortunately, however, he is doing worse than joke.
The reality is that this guy's logic is so profoundly screwed up, his arguments
can only please his Jewish masters.
Second
illustration: David French is suggesting that, “even small American deployments
facilitate continued involvement by European allies.” Hooray! Do you know what
this sounds like, my friend? It sounds like the guy who says to his sidekick: a
bear is coming at us, and I am going to run. The other guy says, you can't
outrun a bear. And the first replies: All I have to do is outrun you. Well, not
quite an exact analogy, you might say, and you’re right. So, here is a better analogy
to represent the America-in-Syria situation:
It
is the story of the antelope and the family of rodents. The antelope says to
the rodents: a lion is coming at us, so why aren’t you running? We're not
running, says the head of the rodent family because in the choice between us,
the lion will choose to eat you. And so I ask you, my dear reader, why do you
think the Europeans want the Americans to stay in Syria before they'll go there
as well? The reason is that in the choice between the Americans and the
Europeans, the enemy will choose to kill the Americans.
Keep
this in mind as you continue to read the article and you encounter this
passage: “If the allies come through, they will create an effective deterrent
and leave ISIS with less abilities. Critically, it will help prevent Russia,
Iran, and the Assad regime from gaining more power at the expense of American
credibility and influence.” Well, if not ignorance of history, this is a
manifestation of extreme intellectual dishonesty.
Speaking
of the moments when America lost credibility and influence, you'll find them to
have occurred not when America lost battles — at
which time it actually gained sympathy for the casualties it suffered — but when its allies lost confidence in the logic
of the mission in which they were dragged. This was the time when the allies decided
to start withdrawing their troops from the battlefield, leaving America to
fight and struggle alone. It is what happened in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Now David French wants the same thing to happen to America in Syria.
In
fact, on the same day that David French published his article, and in the same
publication, Michael Brendan Dougherty published his own piece under the title:
“Our Orwellian Syria Policy.” He made a number of good points but his main
focus has been the antics that eroded American credibility and influence. What
follows is a condensed version of the relevant passages:
“The White House said it planned to leave 200 American troops in
Syria. In December, Trump announced a complete withdrawal from Syria. In
January various advisers were redesigning the withdrawal in a way that our men
would continue the mission from Iraq. Now we have it that a small peacekeeping
group of 200 will remain in Syria. What is peacekeeping in this instance?
American soldiers will provide logistics, intelligence and surveillance for
directing airstrikes to targets. These are the actions of a belligerent, not a
peacekeeper. Thus, America will still be part of the Syrian civil war. I'm
struck by the Orwellian redefinition of America First: Doing what Sunni
fanatics, Kurdish communists [and Jewish Zionists] want is now America First.
Who is in charge, exactly? Whose regime is being changed?”
This
is the sort of thing that America was doing when it lost credibility and
influence. Probing deep into the matter, you'll find that the image of a regime
that's caught in a state of disorder — being “democratically”
pulled in all directions by opportunists who seek to sponge on it — tends to evoke more contempt in the observer than
the dissolution of an autocratic regime that couldn't make it … and so admitted
without resorting to a Democratic-Orwellian rhetoric aimed at making the
failure appear like success.