Wednesday, John Kerry told the Senate not to worry about the cost of an American war on Syria.

The Saudis and Gulf Arabs, cash-fat on the $110-a-barrel oil they sell U.S. consumers, will pick up the tab for the Tomahawk missiles.

Has it come to this – U.S. soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen as the mercenaries of sheikhs, sultans and emirs, Hessians of the New World Order, hired out to do the big-time killing for Saudi and Sunni royals?

Yesterday, too, came a stunning report in the Washington Post.

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations has joined the Israeli lobby AIPAC in an all-out public campaign for a U.S. war on Syria

TRENDING: Black leaders: BLM about overthrow of U.S., not race

Marvin Hier of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League have invoked the Holocaust, with Hier charging the U.S. and Britain failed to rescue the Jews in 1942.

Yet, if memory serves, in '42 the Brits were battling Rommel in the desert and the Americans were still collecting their dead at Pearl Harbor and dying on Bataan and Corregidor.

The Republican Jewish Coalition, too, bankrolled by Sheldon Adelson, the Macau casino mogul whose solicitude for the suffering children of Syria is the stuff of legend, is also backing Obama's war.

Adelson, who shelled out $70 million to bring down Barack, wants his pay-off – war on Syria. And he is getting it. Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor have saluted and enlisted. Sheldon, fattest of all fat cats, is buying himself a war.

Yet, is it really wise for Jewish organizations to put a Jewish stamp on a campaign to drag America into another war that a majority of their countrymen do not want to fight?

Moreover, this war has debacle written all over it. Should it come, a divided nation will be led by a diffident and dithering commander in chief who makes Adlai Stevenson look like Stonewall Jackson.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey is having trouble even defining the mission. While Obama says it will be an in-and-out strike of hours, a "shot across the bow," John McCain says the Senate resolution authorizes robust strikes, lethal aid to the rebels and a campaign to bring down Bashar Assad.

If the Republican Party backs this war, it will own this war.

Order Pat Buchanan's brilliant and prescient books at WND's Superstore.

And U.S. involvement will last not for days, but for the duration. And if our power is unleashed, our prestige and superpower status go on the line.

If the rebels then lose, we lose. And if the rebels win, who wins?

Is it the same jihadists who just shelled that Christian village and terrorized that convent of Christian nuns?

Is it the same rebels seen on the front page of Thursday's New York Times about to execute, Einsatzgruppen-style, captive Syrian soldiers, forgetting only to have the victims of their war crime dig their own graves first?

Does the Republican Party really want to own a war that could end with al-Qaida in power or occupying sanctuaries in Syria?

Does the U.S. Jewish community really want to be responsible for starting a war that ends with 2 million Christian Syrians facing a fate not unlike that of Poland's Jews?

About the debate on this war, there is an aspect of the absurd.

We are told we must punish Assad for killing Syrians with gas, but we do not want Assad's regime to fall. Which raises a question: How many Syrians must we kill with missiles to teach Assad he cannot kill any more Syrians with gas? Artillery, fine. Just no gas.

How many Syrians must we kill to restore the credibility of our befuddled president who now says he did not draw that "red line" on chemical weapons; the world did when it outlawed such weapons.

Yet this statement may offer Obama a way out of a crisis of his own making without his starting a war to save face.

Iran and Russia agree chemical weapons were used. Vladimir Putin has said Russia will back military action against those who did it. The Russians have put out a 100-page document tracing the March use of chemical weapons to the rebels. The Turks reportedly intercepted small amounts of sarin going to the rebels. We claim solid proof that Assad's regime authorized and used chemical weapons.

Why not tell the Russians to meet us in the Security Council where we will prove our "slam-dunk" case?

If we can, and do, we will have far greater support for collective sanctions or action than we do now. And if we prove our case and the U.N. does nothing, we will have learned something about the international community worth learning.

But the idea of launching missiles based on evidence we will not reveal about Syria's use of chemical weapons, strikes that will advance the cause of the al-Qaida terrorists who killed 3,000 of us and are anxious to kill more, would be an act of such paralyzing stupidity one cannot believe that even this crowd would consciously commit it.

Receive Pat Buchanan's commentaries in your email BONUS: By signing up for Pat Buchanan's weekly alerts, you will also be signed up for news and special offers from WND via email. Name * First Last

Email * Where we will email your daily updates

Postal code * A valid zip code or postal code is required



Click the button below to sign up for Pat Buchanan's commentaries by email, and keep up to date with special offers from WND. You may change your email preferences at any time.

Should Congress give Obama authority to attack Syria? Yes, the U.S. should do everything possible to topple Bashar Assad's regime

Yes, this is a humanitarian mission of the highest order

Yes, Syria's use of chemical weapons must be stopped at all costs

Yes, the U.S. will never be taken seriously again if we don’t back up our posturing

Yes, House Speaker John Boehner is right: Only the U.S. has the capability to stop Assad

Yes, how can anyone look at innocent, suffering children and not act?

Yes, even the Republican leadership is in favor of it. Bipartisanship has finally come to Washington

Yes, John Kerry says the U.S. has evidence of Syria's sarin use, and I believe him

Yes, it might help distract the media from all their so-called 'scandal' coverage and the impeachment movement

Yes, the U.S. has to stop abuses like governments gassing their own people

Yes, Syria's chemical weapons likely came from Iraq while it was ruled by Saddam Hussein. The U.S. must not let them get away again

Yes, Congress should give the OK so Obama can continue making a buffoon of himself

No, U.S. military action might not even have a real effect. The regime could use the affair as propaganda to stoke anti-Western sentiment

No, there are no vital national security interests at stake in Syria

No, the U.S. had more support going into the Iraq war, and look how that turned out

No, not one drop of American soldiers' blood should be shed in Syria

No, we have enough problems here to worry about

No, we're already broke. How can we afford a war?

No, didn't we learn our lesson from Egypt and Libya?

No, we're supporting the wrong side!

No, both sides are evil – but the current regime is better than what's coming if it's overthrown

No, Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to new overseas military intervention

No, let's pick our fights intelligently. This would be a weak, ineffective, face-saving, limited bombing of Syrians to maintain our credibility

No, Obama still hasn't provided proof it was Assad who used chemical weapons

No, this Syrian misadventure threatens to put the U.S. on a very perilous collision course with Russia, China and Iran

No, this will be the beginning of World War III

Other View Results