Wars and Rumors of War...AGAIN!

All we heard in the lead up to the 2012 election was that our involvement in the various wars and troubled areas of the Middle-East was winding down, even though the so-called Arab Spring served to destabilize the area worse than our bumbling efforts to fight politically correct  wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then we armed the rebels in Libya resulting in the fall of a dictator, only to be replaced by an Islamist leaning regime and the death of our ambassador. This all happened around the same time we were sending troops into Mali to prop up a group of rebels that had taken the capital city. As far as I can find we have only had three soldiers killed there in the course of their "liaison" duties. Now Turkey, a NATO ally and ostensibly moderate Islamic state, is beginning to unravel and become less moderate and Syria is reminiscent of Kosovo and Bosnia circa 1990's.

 Syria is the fulcrum that could spin all of this into something far worse than another Bosnia, or Iraq, or even Afghanistan. Like Bosnia and Iraq this is sectarian in nature. Unlike Iraq though, where it was Saddam's Sunnis running the show, in Syria it is the Shia. The difference between the Sunni and Shia is who was Mohammed's successor after he died. Iran has reportedly sent Assad 4,000 of its Republican Guard and Iran's proxy force Hezbollah has opened up multiple fronts that the rebels thought they had secured and the Russians are arming the Assad regime. Now here we come two years into the fight and decide to arm the Sunni (the same group we disposed in Iraq) rebels. Of the 9 prominent rebel groups 7 have been seen flying the black flag of  Al Qaeda and are more in line with the Muslim Brotherhood than King Abdullah in neighboring Jordan. Why would we arm these guys? What is our possible gain in this conflict, other than to feel good because Assad has killed 90,000 of his own people? Now there are rumblings of a no-fly zone being implemented. What happens when we lose a pilot to the enforcement of this no-fly zone or we kill Iranian troops? Do we then send in a T.R.AP. (Tactical Recovery of Aircraft Personnel) or a CSAR (Combat Search and Rescue) team? Will they confront then the possible Iranian forces and how will Iran respond? We currently have 350 troops, Marines I think, in Jordan. King Abdullah has said he will go to war if attacked by Syria...While I can't say with certainty that this will end badly for the U.S. it seems to have the potential to end in blood and tears instead of rainbows and gummi bears dancing to a Katy Perry song. 

  

So we HAVE to pass an immigration bill because the system is broke. To draw these poor people out of the "shadows". We can't keep track of them otherwise...And they are productive members of society...wait if we couldn't find them because they were in the "shadows" how can we know they are productive members of society? Well they will pay taxes...but the earned income tax credit will cancel most if not all of their "contribution". The government can monitor the communications of its citizens, "ostensibly" to protect us from terrorists but they can't use that same tech to find illegals? WOW! Those are some deep shadows. Hell Snowden didn't need to run to China he just needed to hook up with an illegal. The justice Department could never find him. lucky thing Osama didn't know otherwise the S.E.A.L.s never would have found him.

Let's not even consider the economic ramifications of this nonsense. We are not suffering from a labor shortage: unemployment is at 7.5% nationally, but unemployment among black is 13.2% and Hispanics are at 9.1% and you want to add 11-20 million more people to this? This is potentially disastrous. This is folly and both parties are selling the country down the river for political gain.