Pat Buchanan Slams Neocons Over Ludicrous Syrian No-Fly Zone Idea

Giving his take on Russia's decision to begin airstrikes against ISIL and other terrorist forces looking to overthrow the Syrian government, Buchanan explained that Moscow had many sensible reasons to get involved, including its longstanding alliance with Damascus, a desire to preserve its toehold on the Mediterranean, and not least, to keep the Russian terrorists caught up in the war from coming home to roost in Russia itself.

Neocons' Berserk Reaction to Russian Involvement

The veteran politician and commentator pointed out that despite the fact that Russia's actions are no different than the US's own recent interventions to save their allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, Moscow's decision has been met with a much different tone in Washington.

"In intervening to save Assad, Putin is doing exactly what we are doing to save our imperiled allies in Baghdad and Kabul. Yet Putin's intervention has ignited an almost berserk reaction."

That reaction, Buchanan explained, consisted of John McCain and Hillary Clinton offering 'solutions' to the 'problem' of Russian planes in Syria which would destabilize the region and possibly even lead to all-out war between the US and Russia.

McCain proposed arming the Free Syrian Army 'moderates' with portable US surface-to-air missile systems to bring down Russian planes. In Buchanan's view, "not only could this lead to a US-Russia clash, but US-backed Syrian rebels have a record of transferring weapons to the al-Qaeda affiliate," the al-Nusra Front. 

"The end result of McCain's initiative, sending Stingers to Syria, could be airliners blown out of the sky across the Middle East," the analyst warns.

Clinton, meanwhile, suggested that Washington should create a no-fly zone, an idea quickly endorsed by the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. In Buchanan's words, apparently, "US-Russian dogfights over Syria are just fine" for these papers, and the Democratic presidential candidate whose plan they endorse.

Astounded, Buchanan asks plainly whether "the War Party has thought this through?"

"Establishing a no-fly zone over Syria, which means shooting down Syrian fighter-bombers and helicopters, is an act of war." Congress, the commentator recalled, did not give the president the authorization to go to war with Syria. 

"When last Obama requested such authority –in 2013, when chemical weapons were used –the American people arose as one to say no to US intervention. Congress backed away without even voting." If the US were to proceed with airstrikes against Syrian army forces, this  "would represent an unauthorized and unconstitutional American war."

"The Syrians," Buchanan noted, "would fight –and not only the Syrian army. For Russia, Hezbollah, and Iran are allied to the Damascus regime, as all believe they have a vital interest to its survival. How would Russia, Iran and Hezbollah respond to US air strikes on their ally? Would they pack it in and leave? Is that our experience with these folks?"

The analyst paints an apocalyptic picture of how a US attack on the Syrian military would look, noting that "if we begin to attack the Syrian army or air force, we will be in a new war where the entire Shiite Crescent of Iran, Baghdad, Damascus, and Hezbollah, backed by Russia, will be on the other side. We will have taken the Sunni side in the Sunni-Shiite sectarian long war. How long such a war would last, and how it would end, no one knows."

To Buchanan, it is patently "obvious that the same blockheads who told us that if the Taliban and Saddam and Gadhafi fell, liberal democracy would arise and flourish, are now clamoring for another American war," this time "in Syria, to bring down Assad."

Sensible vs. Senseless Foreign Policy

Buchanan argues that unlike Russian policy in Syria, which he suggests is sensible and straightforward, seeking to support an ally, US policy in the country doesn't even make any sense.

"We train rebels at immense cost to fight Assad, who cannot or will not fight. We attack ISIS, which also seeks to bring down the Assad regime. And we, too, want to bring down Assad. Who do we think will rise if Assad falls? Do we have a 'government in a box' that we think we can fly to Damascus and put into power if the Syrian army collapses, the regime falls and ISIS approaches the capital? Have we forgotten the lesson of Animal Farm? When the animals revolt and take over the farm, the pigs wind up in charge."

A veteran political commentator, columnist and writer, Pat Buchanan is also the former White House Communications Director for the Reagan Administration, and a former Republican Party presidential candidate.