Syrians killed in the ongoing civil war will be just as dead tomorrow whether their lives were extinguished by beheading, bombing, shooting, stabbing, defenestration or gassing with chemical weapons.

“What difference does it make?” is to borrow an infamous question from one of the New Left’s most prominent of sacred cows, Hillary Clinton. Of course she was referring to the circumstances surrounding the Benghazi affair in which four Americans were killed nearly one year ago. Today still there are no reasonable answers to the embarrassing questions some were asking and which led to her hectoring outburst.

Was the US secretly using Libya as a base for smuggling arms to the Syrian rebels as some have suggested? That hardly matters much either until you contrast the closed lips regarding the Benghazi affair with the loose lips concerning the question of whether a military strike should be initiated against the Syrian regime. Suddenly, Obama and his supporters are gung-ho with respect to providing details to the media of all aspects of a possible strike even listing the probable targets.

There is no legitimate moral reason for striking Syria. As horrendous as the situation is for Syrian citizens the US and the rest of the world essentially turn a blind eye to all of the atrocities which are committed daily in other Islamist countries, in China, in North Korea and in several African nations. What makes Syria a special case? What is the US national security interest?

The alleged chemical weapon attack in Syria is just the most conspicuous recent atrocity to have captured the eye of cynical politicians like Barack Obama. The only purpose of a military strike of several days duration is to bolster the political status of the Administration and the Democratic Party in the minds of a very altruistic, emotional and sentimental population.

The desired impact for the Obama legacy—ill-conceived though I think it will prove to be—cannot be underestimated.

©Copyright 2013 Edward Podritske