Breaking Bad and the Federal Government: Who Is the Real Criminal?

by Gerard Emershaw

On Sunday, AMC’s award winning drama “Breaking Bad” ended its five season run. In many ways, the show’s antihero protagonist Walter White is emblematic of the early 21st century American male. University professors, pop culture aficionados, and fans of the show will be discussing the finer points of the psychology of the tragic Walter White for decades to come. The question that will be considered in what follows is “Who is the real criminal?” Are drug dealers like Walter White the real criminals or are federal employees like White’s brother-in-law Hank Schrader who work for unconstitutional agencies the real criminals?

Walter White is a bad man. There is no doubt about this. He proves himself to be “the danger” and “the one that knocks.” During the course of “Breaking Bad,” he is responsible for the murders of well over a dozen individuals. However, the majority of these murders are the killings of drug dealing rivals, the kinds of murders typical in the narcotics trade. These are the kinds of murders that were once associated with bootleggers during Prohibition. Employees of rival alcohol producing companies do not engage in violence against each other now that alcohol is legal in the United States. Luiz Fernando Edmond, the president of Anheuser-Busch, does not order hits on employees of the Coors Brewing Company. Coors CEO Peter Swinburn does not resort to violence in order to force Anheuser-Busch out of his “territory” in Colorado.

Those in the drug trade are made into criminals by arbitrary laws that outlaw certain classes of intoxicants while allowing other classes to be freely produced, traded, and used. In an important sense, the federal government makes itself one of the major causes of the violence connected with the drug trade by making substances such as crystal methamphetamine illegal.

Walter White’s brother-in-law Hank Schrader works for the federal government at the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The DEA is tasked with enforcing federal drug laws by combating drug smuggling and use. The first thing to notice about the DEA is that it is an unconstitutional agency. The DEA was created by President Richard Nixon on July 28, 1973. There is nothing in the Constitution that grants the President the power to create such a law enforcement agency. Furthermore, there is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress the power to criminalize any drugs. The federal government acknowledged this undeniable fact when it legally amended the Constitution through the Eighteenth Amendment rather than simply passing the Volstead Act in the absence of such an amendment.

Prior to Prohibition, the federal government banned the non-medical use of opiates with the passage of the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914. This was an unconstitutional move since there is nothing in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution which grants Congress the power to ban opiates or any other kinds of drugs. While state legislatures do possess the constitutional authority to ban drugs under the Tenth Amendment, it is likely that drugs would not be so widely banned in states were it not for the federal ban. No state currently bans alcohol, though it would not be unconstitutional for a state to enact prohibition within its borders. Therefore, the federal government has created the environment which gives rise to drug violence and the associated crimes that are committed due to the artificially high price of narcotics through its unconstitutional actions in banning drugs and declaring the destructive War on Drugs.

ASAC Hank Schrader and all other employees of the DEA are essentially criminals. This is actually true of all federal employees who work for unconstitutional agencies. While employees of the Department of Education or the Social Security Agency might not be poisoning people’s tea with ricin, blowing them up with bombs, or strangling them with bicycle locks, they are criminals all the same. Everything that an unconstitutional federal government agency does is illegal. Thus, every official action taken by its employees is illegal. Furthermore, those who work for agencies such as the DEA create the environment that inevitably breeds monsters like Walter “Heisenberg” White.

Krokodil and the War on Drugs

by Gerard Emershaw

It produces a high similar to heroin, but it is much cheaper to produce. Krokodil—known more formally as desomorphine—is produced by mixing codeine with substances like gasoline, paint thinner, oil, alcohol, hydrochloric acid, or iodine. The drug gets its nickname from the hideous effects that its use produces at the site of injection:

The drug's sinister moniker—also known as crocodile—refers to the greenish and scaly appearance of a user's skin at the site of injection as blood vessels rupture and cause surrounding tissues to die.

The flesh-eating Krokodil first began being used significantly in Russia in 2002 and grew to an epidemic. By 2010, up to a million Russians were injecting desomorphine into their veins.

The first reported cases of Krokodil use in the United States have emerged in Arizona. Frank LoVecchio, the co-medical director at the Banner Good Samaritan Poison & Drug Information Center, has reported seeing two cases during the past week.

Any time that the media reports on a new drug craze, it inevitably sparks hysteria in suburban America. From ecstasy to bath salts to the dubious I-dosing, the American media loves nothing more than to frighten George and Martha on Main Street, USA by making them believe that their precious children Ashley and Dylan might soon fall prey to the latest version of Reefer Madness.

If and when Krokodil or some other new mind altering and potentially dangerous substance does catch on in the United States, blowhards will again be calling for renewed effort in the War on Drugs. However, the most dangerous drugs exist and become popular because drugs are illegal. The illegality of drugs makes them more expensive. This is because in addition to the costs of producing and delivering the substances, there are the addition costs attributed to the risk. Thus, cheap and ultra-dangerous drugs like Krokodil develop a market because they are affordable alternatives to expensive drugs like heroin. While draconian “sin” taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, chewing tobacco, etc. have been causing the prices on such products to skyrocket, when left to the free market, these things tend to be reasonably priced. This is because legal competition is widespread and not having to evade law enforcement and not having to gun it out with rival drug gangs lowers production costs.

When consumers have their choice within a free market of legal mind altering substances, they tend to choose safer and milder versions. For example, in the United States, the best selling beer is Bud Light. Bud Light is only 3.88% alcohol. American imbibers could easily choose 190 proof Everclear over Bud Light, but they simply prefer to sip a mild beer rather than guzzle grain alcohol. If drugs were legal in the United States, it is likely that a mild brand of morphine would become far more popular than heroin or Krokodil. If Russians had had wide access to inexpensive forms of morphine, then Krokodil would never have become popular in the first place. Because alcohol is legal and affordable in the United States, moonshine is not very popular. Likewise, if drugs were legal, there would be little fear that new and dangerous drugs would catch on with users. If and when Ashley and Dylan are strung out on Krokodil and their flesh begins to rot, George and Martha can thank the War on Drugs for it. 

Who Will Benefit the Most if Diplomacy Fails in Syria?

by Gerard Emershaw

The United States and Russia have reached a deal in which the Syrian government would turn over its chemical weapon stockpile for destruction. However, there are many ways in which this deal could fall apart. President Obama has indicated that if diplomacy fails, the use of military force against Syria is still a possibility. Congress is unlikely to vote on the use of force against Syria, but President Obama has indicated that he does not need permission from Congress to strike Syria.

The idea of American military action against Syria is simply not popular with the American public. According to an NBC News poll, nearly 80% of Americans believe that President Obama does need permission from Congress in order to attack Syria. According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, only 33% said that Congress should approve President Obama's request to attack Syria. According to a Reuters/Ipso poll, 75% of Americans support the use of diplomacy to resolve the crisis in Syria.

Syria poses no military threat to the United States. The United States has no national interest in Syria. An attack on Syria is unlikely to help President Obama in his legislative dealings with Congress or help his popularity with the American people. There are no Trotskyite neocons in the Obama administration whispering in his ear, and despite his faults, President Obama is not as naïve and easily led as his predecessor often was. Syria is not oil rich. It ranks 32nd in oil production—which makes up less than .5% of the world's total. Given that any military action in Syria would allegedly involve no “boots on the ground,” there would be no occupation. No occupation means no nation building. No nation building means no opportunity for war profiteering companies like KBR to enrich themselves through no bid contracts to rebuild the infrastructure of Syria or to provide services in support of the occupation.

So who or what is behind the hawkish desire of President Obama to attack Syria? The question to ask is probably: “Who would benefit the most from the fall of Assad's government?” The most obvious answer is the Jihadists who dominate the rebel forces. However, President Obama has no reason to wish Al Qaeda to gain dominance over yet another country or to wish another Middle Eastern country to become a fundamentalist Islamic nation under Sharia law. Some may suggest that Israel would benefit, but this is debatable. If Assad becomes desperate, he is likely to launch chemical attacks against Israel. Furthermore, there is evidence that the rebels are considering launching a chemical attack of their own against Israel. A choice between Hezbollah or Al Qaeda having influence in Syria is not a pleasant choice for Israel, and it very well may prefer dealing with the devil it knows. The fact that Hezbollah has 70,000 rockets aimed at Israel makes an attack on Assad seem even less attractive to Israel.

Arthur Conan Doyle's famous fictional detective Sherlock Holmes famously said: “When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Having eliminated so many possibilities, two remain.

1. Raytheon

President Eisenhower presciently warned against the Military-Industrial Complex during his farewell speech in 1961. Raytheon is a poster child for the Military-Industrial Complex. Raytheon produces the Tomahawk missile, which it sells for about $1.4 million a piece. The beating of the war drums over Syria has caused the Pentagon to consider purchasing even more than the 196 Tomahawk missiles that it already buys per year. In the “kinetic military action” against Libya in 2011, the United States fired more than 112 Tomahawk missiles.

In December, the Pentagon paid Raytheon $254.6 for Tomahawk missiles just six months after paying them $337.8 million. Raytheon also produces Joint Standoff Weapons (JSOWs)—“low-cost, air-to-ground weapons that employ an integrated GPS-inertial navigation system and terminal imaging infrared seeker.” A “low cost” JSOW still costs $285,000.

The run up to possible American military action against Syria has been beneficial for Raytheon stock because of these reasons. Since June 25, the stock has increased more than 20% in value.

Nevertheless, this does not prove that Raytheon or the Military-Industrial Complex in general is pulling the President’s strings on Syria. There is no reason that “kinetic military action” in Syria would be preferable over such action in any other place. President Obama has also claimed that any American actions in Syria would be even more limited than the military action that he took in Libya in 2011. While American military intervention in Syria would be profitable to Raytheon, would it be profitable enough for them to seek to gin up a war? Could Raytheon possibly have enough influence over President Obama to force his hand in this manner? It seems unlikely.

2. Qatar

Qatar wants to build a natural gas pipeline through Syria into Europe. Unfortunately for Qatar, Assad has refused to allow this, opting instead to pursue negotiations with Iran on an alternative pipeline that would ship natural gas to Europe across Iran, Iraq, and Syria. In February, Iraq approved a deal for this pipeline with Iran and Syria. Qatar saw this as a “direct slap in the face” to its plans. As a result, Qatar has spent over $3 billion over the last two years bankrolling the Syrian rebels. Qatar began funding the Al Qaeda allied Syrian rebels at about the same time that it began funding Al Qaeda allied Libyan rebels. If victorious, these rebels would likely be inclined to sign a new deal for a pipeline with their benefactors in Qatar rather than Assad allies in Iran. The rebels are also Sunni and far more likely to do business with fellow Sunnis in Qatar.

Qatar has had close military ties with the United States since 1992 and is the location of U.S. Central Command’s Forward Headquarters and the Combined Air Operations Center. However, Qatar is “totally dependent on US militarism and diplomatic protection.” Therefore, it appears that the United States taking down the Assad regime on Qatar’s behalf would be a matter of the tail wagging the dog. 

3. The Wider Middle East Plan

In an interview given on March 2, 2007, retired 4-star United States Army General Wesley Clark spoke of a memo that he was shown by another general around the time that the United States began its military campaign against Afghanistan:

“This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”

The United States has already taken out Iraq and Libya. Could this neoconservative plan be back on? Could the neo-progressives hawks in President Obama’s administration be reinstituting this plan? Or has the plan continuously been in place? More importantly, if this plan is currently in effect and guiding President Obama’s hand on Syria, who is behind the plan? The Military-Industrial Complex? Big Oil? Some combination of these? Someone else? The fact that no entity powerful enough to strongly influence American foreign policy benefits enough by military action in Syria makes President Obama’s militaristic zeal puzzling. Could he actually have humanitarian concerns over the innocent civilians suffering in Syria? He has not shown similar concern over the innocent civilians suffering as a result of his drone campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen, so this seems unlikely.

Taking a longer view, it could be that action in Syria would not be about Syria at all, but about Iran. This may be confirmed by the events which occur in the near future. As a result, both Assad’s progress in satisfying the dictates of the Obama-Putin plan to surrender Syrian chemical weapons and Iran’s behavior will bear close watching.

Putin the Peacemaker?

by Gerard Emershaw

On September 11, The New York Times published an op-ed from Russian President Vladimir Putin entitled “A Plea for Caution From Russia.” In this editorial, Putin urges President Obama not to attack Syria. Has the Russian dictator and former KGB agent become a peacemaker? Probably not, but his words do deserve consideration.

Putin says:

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Putin gives voice to the many possibilities for blowback that military strikes against Syria by the United States would create. In many ways the Syrian Civil War is a microcosm of the violent tensions in the Muslim World. The war pits Assad’s Alawites—a branch of Shia—against the Sunni rebels. The Muslim world at present can be viewed as a tense religionist rivalry between the Shia Iranians and the Sunni Saudis. With the importance of Middle East oil to the world economy, the worst possible scenario would be a wider regional sectarian war involving Shiite and Sunni factions. The potential fall of the Shiite Syrian government could make Iran nervous, as it would be losing one of its few allies. A nervous Iran is far more likely to continue its nuclear weapons program in earnest. More turmoil in the Middle East will definitely make solving Israeli-Palestinian issues more difficult.

Unlike President Obama, who tried to characterize the radical Jihadist Syrian rebels as “moderates” who wanted peace and democracy, Putin does not attempt to characterize his ally Assad as the Thomas Jefferson of Syria:

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world. Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

At no point did President Obama discuss the tensions in Syria between Alawites and Sunnis. Clearly, unlike his predecessor in the White House, President Obama knows the difference between Shiites and Sunnis. Does President Obama consider that to be unimportant? Or is it a nuance that he believes the American public is not intelligent enough to grasp? Unlike President Obama, President Putin is also willing to address the elephant in the room—the al Qaeda affiliated Jihadists fighting on the side of the rebels. Calling Jihadists “moderates” does not make them so. Putin is correct about the dangers that Jihadist mercenaries represent. These are the individuals who become agitators, insurgents, and terrorists. Putin is right to be afraid of them. Russians do not want to become targets for terrorists any more than Americans do.

Putin continues:

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

The Butcher of Grozny pretending to be a peacenik might be funny, but after a good laugh, his words need to be considered. Putin clearly cares little or nothing about international law. He certainly had no concern for international law when he was killing Chechens or Georgians. Putin is obviously protecting Russia’s ally Syria. Russia has long enjoyed strong relations with Syria. Russia's only Mediterranean military base is in Syria. Russia's exports to Syria are worth over $1 billion per year, and its investments in Syria are worth over $20 billion. But why is it okay for the United States to staunchly support its allies, right or wrong, but not okay for Russia to do the same? Of course, supporting tyrants in nations like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain is immoral for the United States, but clearly no more immoral than Putin supporting Assad. With the fall of Russia’s ally Qaddafi in Libya, it is easy to understand why Putin might feel uneasy. With the NATO alliance getting closer to the Russian border, and allies falling left and right, Russia naturally feels threatened.

Putin is correct in stating that an American attack against Syria would be illegal under international law. Since Russia opposes an attack on Syria, Russia would veto such a decision by the UN Security Council. This would leave self defense as the only other possible justification. Syria has not attacked the United States, and President Obama acknowledges that Syria poses no military threat to the United States. 

Putin denies President Obama’s claim that it is a certainty that Assad used chemical weapons:

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack—this time against Israel—cannot be ignored.

There has indeed been no confirmation of Assad being responsible. It is just as likely at this point that the attack was perpetrated by Jihadist rebels, perhaps as a false flag. Indeed, multiple sources have allegedly told RT that militants are planning to launch a chemical attack on Israel from government-controlled territories as a “provocation.” While this must be taken with a grain of salt, it is obvious that rebel Jihadists pose as big if not bigger threat to Israel than Assad’s government does.  

Sounding oddly like an American non-interventionist, Putin contends that recent American military actions have been failures and that any American attack on Syria will lead to civilian casualties:

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes. No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

It is strange that Putin can see the parallels between Iraq and Syria yet President Obama cannot. Is this the same President Obama who reflexively blames anything and everything on President George W. Bush? Why would he want to follow in President Bush’s footsteps?

Putin urges: “We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.” When the tyrant is urging peace and the Nobel Peace Prize winner is urging war, all bets are off. If Putin can indeed encourage Assad to give up Syria’s chemical weapons, then he will make himself a favorite to win a Nobel Peace Prize. Fox News is reporting that Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have reached a framework for an agreement on securing Syria's chemical weapons. 

Putin concludes with a zinger:

And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

The idea of “American exceptionalism” has been dangerous. It has given rise to evils such as Manifest Destiny. When the United States was at its greatest, it was a humble beacon of peace. When you are exceptional, you do not need to tell everyone that you are. If and when the United States returns to its non-interventionist roots and promotes peace and freedom by example, it will again be exceptional. Right now, it is far from such exceptionalism.

Obama on Syria: Nobel Peace Prize Winner Tries to Gin Up War

by Gerard Emershaw

On the evening of September 10, 2013, Nobel Peace Prize winner President Barack Obama spoke to the American people and tried to sell them on an interventionist war with Syria that they do not want:

Over the past two years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad has turned into a brutal civil war. Over 100,000 people have been killed. Millions have fled the country. In that time, America has worked with allies to provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition, and to shape a political settlement. But I have resisted calls for military action, because we cannot resolve someone else’s civil war through force, particularly after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Humanitarian support? Like the weapons that the CIA has been shipping to Syrian rebels? Moderate opposition? Like the al Qaeda affiliated group the al-Nusra Front, which an analyst has recently called the best armed al Qaeda affiliate? Moderates like Farouq Brigade cannibal leader Abu Sakkar, who consumed his enemy’s heart in a video? Moderates like the Syrian rebels murdering helpless bound Syrian soldiers in cold blood? Moderates like the Syrian rebels murdering children in Christian villages? With moderates like these, who needs radical Jihadists?  

President Obama claims to have “resisted calls for military action.” What this really amounts to saying is that he followed the Constitution, which states that only Congress may declare war. Given that he egregiously violated both the Constitution and the likely unconstitutional War Powers Resolution with his “kinetic military action” in Libya—which produced as blowback the massacre in Benghazi—perhaps in the bizarre world that we all live in, he should be lauded. Then again, according to Secretary of State John Kerry, President Obama believes that he can attack Syria without the approval of Congress. If he does believe that, then all of this is nothing but a charade. He would claim minutes later:

So even though I possess the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress. I believe our democracy is stronger when the President acts with the support of Congress. And I believe that America acts more effectively abroad when we stand together.

It turns out the speech would be a charade that would basically just waste time and needlessly pre-empt the regularly scheduled television programming. No news here. President Obama never believed in the Constitution, and he still does not.

According to President Obama:

The situation profoundly changed, though, on August 21st, when Assad’s government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children. The images from this massacre are sickening: Men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas. Others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath. A father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk. On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons, and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off-limits—a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war. … Moreover, we know the Assad regime was responsible. 

President Obama does not know that Assad was responsible for the attack. Perhaps he believes that Assad did. Perhaps Assad did. Assad is certainly a ruthless and murderous dictator. However, Syrian rebel group and al Qaeda affiliate the al-Nusra Front has claimed that it is responsible for the attack blamed on Assad. Furthermore, the UN investigators have yet to release their report on the sarin gas attacks in Syria.

Assuming that Assad is responsible for the gas attacks, does that make him any worse than the United States that has employed such weapons as atomic bombs, Agent Orange, and depleted uranium tipped missiles? How is what Assad did any worse than what the United States helped Saddam Hussein do to Iranians? How is dying in a gas attack any worse than dying in a drone attack?

According to President Obama, Syrian use of chemical weapons is a danger to national security:

Let me explain why. If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them. Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield. And it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians. If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan, and Israel. And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction, and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran—which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon, or to take a more peaceful path.

Talk about a flimsy slippery slope argument! It is unlikely that Syria—or any other nation—would launch any kind of unprovoked gas attack against American soldiers. If the United States launches an illegal unprovoked war against some nation and that nation uses chemical weapons, who could blame them? Are there any weapons that Americans would refuse to use if the existence of the nation were in danger? After all, the United States was prepared to use nuclear weapons against the existential threat of the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

Any nation that used chemical weapons against the United States or its allies would be crushed. Even the most maniacal dictator knows that. If anyone would ever use chemical weapons against Americans, it would be al Qaeda—the very group that is fighting among the Syrian rebels. If the rebels win, then al Qaeda gains possession of a cache of chemical weapons. How is that good?

The issue of Iran and nuclear weapons has absolutely nothing to do with Syria and chemical weapons. Unless and until the United States stops bringing about regime change in non-nuclear nations like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya while refraining from bringing military action against belligerent nuclear nations like North Korea, then the only sane thing for a nation with ample natural resources and no love for the United States is to develop or acquire a nuclear weapon.

Sounding like Orwell’s Big Brother, the Nobel Peace Prize winner contends that we must make war in Syria:

And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use.

If Syria is a threat to the national security of the United States, then virtually every nation on the face of the globe is. Does that mean the United States should launch Tomahawk missiles against every nation? Actually, President Obama would later reverse course and claim that “the Assad regime does not have the ability to seriously threaten our military.” However, it is unclear how targeted strikes would make Assad less likely to use chemical weapons. If the strikes begin to turn the tide against his regime, it would be more likely that he would become desperate and use more chemical weapons. What is the alternative? Toppled dictators do not meet good ends. Just ask Saddam Hussein or Muammar Qaddafi. Actually, you cannot ask them anything anymore. Without putting boots on the ground, how does President Obama expect to degrade Syria’s chemical weapons supply? There is strong evidence that Syria’s stockpile of chemical weapons is protected from air strikes.

Obama continued his speech by answering questions that he allegedly received from members of Congress and in letters from the American people. When did he start listening to Congress or the American people? Do people really still send letters? It is more likely that these were questions that one of his aides saw on Twitter. Three of these questions were particularly interesting. The first involved the possibility of getting the nation entangled in another needless war:

First, many of you have asked, won’t this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are “still recovering from our involvement in Iraq.” A veteran put it more bluntly: “This nation is sick and tired of war.” My answer is simple: I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons, and degrading Assad’s capabilities.

First, as previously stated, a limited air campaign of targeted strikes will not accomplish any of the President’s objectives. Secondly, how is launching Tomahawk missiles against an enemy not a war? Thirdly, does he not realize that this action could ignite a broader regional war that would pull the United States in? Fourthly, does he not realize that such military belligerency is irrational when it could pull nuclear nations like Russia and China in on the other side? Fifthly, does he not realize that the nation is $17 trillion in debt and even “kinetic military actions” are expensive when you are launching Tomahawk missiles at $1.5 million a pop?

President Obama later considered an even more important question:

Many of you have asked a broader question: Why should we get involved at all in a place that’s so complicated, and where—as one person wrote to me—“those who come after Assad may be enemies of human rights?” It’s true that some of Assad’s opponents are extremists. But al Qaeda will only draw strength in a more chaotic Syria if people there see the world doing nothing to prevent innocent civilians from being gassed to death. The majority of the Syrian people—and the Syrian opposition we work with—just want to live in peace, with dignity and freedom. And the day after any military action, we would redouble our efforts to achieve a political solution that strengthens those who reject the forces of tyranny and extremism.

Those “moderates” again! A “moderate” Jihadist is like Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and a benevolent dictator—it does not exist. Even Orwell’s Big Brother would be confused by President Obama’s doublespeak. How would attacking al Qaeda’s enemy hurt them? Did attacking Nazi Germany during World War II hurt the Soviet Union? Did attacking Japan hurt China? If Assad were to get toppled by air strikes the way that Qaddafi was in Libya, how would gaining control of yet another country hurt al Qaeda? Has he forgotten about the blowback from the Libyan debacle? Of course, he would love to forget about Benghazi, but he surely has not. A political solution? If President Obama wants a political solution, why is he not working on one? Then again, maybe he should just sit this civil war out the way that Britain, France, Spain, and Russia sat out the American Civil War and allowed President Lincoln to crush a violent rebel force even when that meant Lincoln was killing civilians.

Finally, President Obama addressed whether the United States should follow Woodrow Wilson’s dictate to “make the world safe for democracy” by being the policeman of the world:

Finally, many of you have asked: Why not leave this to other countries, or seek solutions short of force?  As several people wrote to me, “We should not be the world’s policeman.” I agree, and I have a deeply held preference for peaceful solutions. Over the last two years, my administration has tried diplomacy and sanctions, warning and negotiations—but chemical weapons were still used by the Assad regime. However, over the last few days, we’ve seen some encouraging signs. In part because of the credible threat of U.S. military action, as well as constructive talks that I had with President Putin, the Russian government has indicated a willingness to join with the international community in pushing Assad to give up his chemical weapons. The Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons, and even said they’d join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use. It’s too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitments. But this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad’s strongest allies.

It is nice that the Nobel Peace Prize winner claims to prefer peaceful solutions. But does he? He ordered a surge in Afghanistan, drone campaigns in Pakistan and Yemen, and “kinetic military action” in Libya. When has he ever managed to bring about a peaceful solution? In what sense has he done anything but try to act like policeman of the world? Of course, in many instances, President Obama acts like a policeman defending one group of criminals against another group of criminals. In some places like Bahrain, he even acts like a policeman defending criminals against innocent victims. The former KGB goon Vladimir Putin is a despot. There is no doubt about that. He is certainly not working for altruistic purposes here. He only seeks peace because he wants the Assad regime to survive due to the fact that Syria is a Russian client state and provides Russia with a base on the Mediterranean. But what kind of world do we live in when a KGB goon might bring peace while a Nobel Peace Prize winning American President promises only war? During the Cold War, the Soviets invaded Afghanistan and ran a police state that spied on its own people. Today, the United States is occupying Afghanistan and running a police state that spies on its own people. Up is down and day is night, apparently.   

As he neared the conclusion of his charade of a speech, President Obama continued to base his hawkish argument for war on an appeal to emotion rather than on logic:

And so, to my friends on the right, I ask you to reconcile your commitment to America’s military might with a failure to act when a cause is so plainly just. To my friends on the left, I ask you to reconcile your belief in freedom and dignity for all people with those images of children writhing in pain, and going still on a cold hospital floor. For sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough. Indeed, I’d ask every member of Congress, and those of you watching at home tonight, to view those videos of the attack, and then ask: What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas, and we choose to look the other way?

If President Obama enjoys watching videos, perhaps he should watch this video of children killed or injured in drone strikes. Or perhaps he should not base his decisions on emotion at all. His job is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. That is a matter of reason and not emotion. Russia killed children in Chechnya. China killed children in Tibet. Should the United States attack these nations? Or is it all really just about the fact that the children in Syria were killed by gas attack? What does that really matter? Assad simply does not have Predator drones or depleted uranium tipped Tomahawk missiles. Tyrants kill the innocent with the weapons that are ready to hand.

As he closed his speech, President Obama quoted FDR:

Franklin Roosevelt once said, “Our national determination to keep free of foreign wars and foreign entanglements cannot prevent us from feeling deep concern when ideals and principles that we have cherished are challenged.”

Quoting FDR at this juncture might have been a bad idea. After all, it was President Roosevelt who maneuvered the United States into World War II by imposing an oil embargo on Japan and inviting the blowback that occurred at Pearl Harbor. If President Obama is to learn any lesson from FDR, perhaps it should be a lesson of avoiding a world war by being careful what actions one takes in foreign policy.

Like any morally and intellectually bankrupt politician, President Obama closes by invoking the children:

America is not the world’s policeman. Terrible things happen across the globe, and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. But when, with modest effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own children safer over the long run, I believe we should act. That’s what makes America different. That’s what makes us exceptional. With humility, but with resolve, let us never lose sight of that essential truth.

Children. Always the children. American children will only face danger if President Obama continues with his reckless foreign policy and creates blowback that produces the next major terrorist attack on American soil. Children will die in Syria one way or the other. Sad but true. Perhaps they will die at the hands of Assad. Perhaps they will die at the hands of the Jihadist rebels. But Syrian children should not die from American missiles. Syria has not attacked the United States and poses no threat to the United States. Attacking Syria would just be naked aggression with no purpose.

Each day Syria feels more and more like déjà vu all over again. Ba’athist dictator? Check. Vague intelligence claims about weapons of mass destruction? Check. A lack of an actual threat to the United States? Check. The potential to create a power vacuum that will help Jihadist terrorists? Check. Albert Einstein defined ‘insanity’ as “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Why would any sane person believe that military action in Syria will not end up a disaster like Iraq or Libya?