Tom Friedman was a hawk on Iraq, and he is a hawk on Syria. He provides his analysis of the situation in the Mid-East, along with his psychoanalysis of V. Putin, in this article. I posted this article, however, to amplify one his points about the lack of populist support for US intervention in Syria. The GOP has usually been hawkish on the use of military force, but John McCain, who has never seen a problem that could not be solved by the use of American might, was unable to win support from the GOP base. Its possible that the GOP base, along with many Democrats, has learned something from our past experiences in the Mid-East. But its also a possibility that Tea Partiers do not support military intervention for another reason. They oppose anything proposed by the president that they despise. On this issue they are aligned with the left wing of the Democratic Party. This must feel strange to them.
Post a Comment