The real reason they want to attack Syria.

[RickN]

Has nothing to do with helping people or defending anyone.

Syria Strike Would Blow Up Sequester

The cost of President Obama’s proposed air war against Syrian government forces could quickly run into the tens of billions of dollars. Not enormous for a government that spends more than $700 billion a year on military matters, but not chump change either.

Given the fact that the Pentagon is bracing for a $20 billion reduction in funding as delayed spending caps from the 2011 debt-ceiling deal – what Washington calls “sequestration” – kick in next month, one might think that hawks would be expressing concerns about such triggering such costs.

But it’s been quite the contrary. The hawkiest of them all, Sen. John McCain, has been pushing longer and harder for American intervention in the Syrian civil war than anyone else. But he has also been among the most outspoken opponents of sequestration, arguing that the across-the-board caps on deficit spending that Republicans fought to preserve are not worth the damage to American military readiness.

To the interventionists in both parties, there’s no contradiction. They believe that the military should be expanding its global footprint and that America ought to have long ago been blowing up billions of dollars worth of Boeing’s best ordnance in Syria.

Syria is evidence to them of the need to expand, not contract, spending. And Republicans, having been the party in favor of increased military spending for most of the past 30 years, might be expected to broadly agree.

Sequestration, though, has been quite instructive on the new GOP. What was conceived by Obama’s team as a way to force Republicans to accept higher taxes – a punishment – has turned out to be rather popular on the right. While Democrats were aghast at any goring of their sacred cows on welfare and other domestic spending, Republicans have been mostly sanguine about capping costs at the Pentagon. This has been a great frustration to the president and to old-guard Republicans. In the post-Iraq Republican Party, though, there has been a marked return to the GOP’s anti-intervention roots.

But there are limits.

House Republicans won an extension of the sequestration during the last bout of fiscal cliff jumping in the spring. As part of the deal to keep the caps, the Pentagon was given some leverage to shift obligations and defer painful choices. Well, time’s up. And Democrats are ready to pounce.

In mid-August, the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., laid out his plan for the looming fiscal fight. In interviews, Van Hollen made clear that Democrats saw the deferred Pentagon pain as a point of leverage. As he told the Washington Post at the time: “If Republicans want to relieve the $20 billion cut to Defense, we must increase non-Defense spending by $20 billion.”

Democrats may be hard pressed to refuse their president’s call to arms in Syria, but that doesn’t mean they will just pony up the extra costs without getting something for, as Obama likes to say, “nation building here at home.”

The calls for squelching the sequestration for the sake of a Syria strike have begun. We’ve heard from Obama’s former Pentagon boss, Leon Panetta, as well as House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon about the Syria-sequestration nexus. As we get closer to the missiles flying, we will hear more as the military makes its case for a return to full funding.

As Republicans consider whether to back Obama’s call for a Syria attack, they will also be thinking about the political battles here at home. Liberals were already calling the deferred Defense cuts the Democrats’ “ace in the hole.” That hole card will get only more valuable if the military has to spend billions more on another Middle East war.

 

[Wheel Gun]

It would definately be a nifty by-product for them. Spending other people's money must be fun.

 

[NikatKimber]

It would definately be a nifty by-product for them. Spending other people's money must be fun.

Yup. Especially when those who earn it don't get to spend it.

 

[Glocktogo]

I'm confused Rick. Are you saying that attacking Syria is a good thing so we can derail hitting the debt ceiling and another sequestration?

 

[Spata]

I thought it was because saudi arabia and qatar wanted to run energy pipelines through syria and assad told them to pound sand.

 

[0311]

That explains why the Republicans are on board.

Edit: The Republicans can get their military cash cow, and the Demos can get their domestic cash cow, the Sequester's days are numbered.

 

[RickN]

I'm confused Rick. Are you saying that attacking Syria is a good thing so we can derail hitting the debt ceiling and another sequestration?

I am agreeing with the author that the bunch in DC think it is a good thing. Both sides get to break the sequester and blame it on the need for military action. In other words "It was not our fault" will be heard all over DC.

 

[John6185]

In my opinion, between stimuli after stimuli, vacations, giving billions to foreign leaders in various places, Food Stamp push, unemployment benefits, Obamacare, Obamaphones, money thrown here and there with no tangible benefits etc.
Someone is deliberately trying to teach us a lesson by bankrupting the United States.

 

[Jestik]

Zombie Thread!