Will Syria restrictions really do a thing to make Illinois any more safe?

I spent the past weekend visiting cousins I haven’t seen in awhile – in large part because they choose to live in Indiana (near Chesterton and Portage, to be exact).

Red Eye touts unity, governors don't

So I had an initial reaction of “What a dink!” when I learned this weekend that Hoosier Gov. Mike Pence was engaging in a knee-jerk reaction being taken by many Republican gubernatorial types – people who are citizens of Syria are being banned from resettlement efforts into Indiana.

IT SUPPOSEDLY MAKES the Hoosier State “more safe” from the type of activity that occurred on Friday (on 11/13/15, to be exact) in Paris. After all, one of the people who may have been involved in that terroristic act was a Syrian citizen.

But now that I’m back in Illinois, I learn that our very own governor – the one who claims he’s not interested in partisan politics but just cares about the good of the people – feels compelled to do the same, exact thing.

Gov. Bruce Rauner made his own statement during the morning hours, with the initial news reports going out during the noon hour on Monday.

People who might be trying to flee Syria and have hopes of going into exile in the United States are going to have certain places forbidden to them – all because some people want to gain political points for themselves by taking the knee-jerk negative reaction. Even if it might be a Syrian refugee who is trying to escape the nonsense that has overtaken his home nation.

NO MORE SYRIA. Even though I suspect many of these same ideologues wouldn’t have a clue where on the map Syria is, or anything about that Middle Eastern nation.

Rauner follows lead of Pence, ...

Excuse me for thinking that I don’t feel any more (or less) safe now than I did on Sunday, or last week or even last year.

I just happen to believe that the kind of people who coordinated the sorts of activities that took place in Paris on Friday (or in New York and suburban D.C. some 14 years ago) aren’t formal activities of any government. Thinking we can do anything based off nationality or citizenship is so short-sighted!

I’d have more respect for Bruce Rauner if he didn’t just follow his political party’s ideological line. If it appeared he put some real thought into this issue!

... while Pence follows GOP overall lead

BECAUSE I HONESTLY believe this action without any real thought behind it merely creates the camouflage that we’re somehow seriously reacting to an international incident without doing a real thing that would make us more safe.

If anything, it comes across as a more shallow gesture than all the political rhetoric that got spewed in the early 2000s when people were eager to bash about France when the perception among the ideologues of our society was that France wasn’t being tough enough to support our interests.

If I never hear the tacky “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” line, it will be too soon. What amazes me is that when that line originated in an episode of “The Simpsons,” it was meant to be so ridiculously over-the-top that no one could possibly take it seriously.

Instead, way too many people did, along with coming up with all kinds of other tacky epithets and sentiments.

IT MAKES ME wonder if any of those individuals are feeling any differently these days, particularly now that France’s military engaged in its own offensive strikes against places in Syria – chosen largely because of their ties to the ISIS group of people who think they’re promoting Islam in the same way the Ku Klux Klan claims to advance Christianity in this nation.

I don’t think many of us really understand a thing about what happened last week in Paris, or what is going on in the Middle East. We just want to rant! I don’t think we even care who we’re ranting about; so long as we can turn the volume up loud.

And while Rauner spent some time Monday morning doing a little ranting, he may have made himself feel better.

But that was a little less time spent trying to figure out how to resolve the state’s financial problems and budget status for real. Except that to many of us prefer to just rant and rage about that issue as well.

  -30-

EXTRA: Syria strike cost? Who knows! Aside from Topinka, who seems to care

I couldn’t help but be amused earlier this week by Illinois Comptroller Judy Baar Topinka when she told a chamber of commerce-type gathering in suburban Tinley Park her thoughts about U.S. military involvement in Syria.

TOPINKA: War too expensive!!!

Her serious point is that any military effort that isn’t completely pointless is going to be expensive – probably to the point that the U.S. government really can’t afford it.

OR, AS THE blunt-spoken official put it following an extensive trashing of Illinois state government for its financial mess, “We don’t need another war, because we can’t afford that either.”

Perhaps she’s on to something. Because the Congressional Budget Office released a report this week saying that it doesn’t have a clue how much a military strike involving Syria would wind up costing the federal government.

“The administration has not detailed how it would use the authority that would be provided by this resolution (authorizing the conflict); thus, CBO has no basis for estimating the costs of implementing,” such a military effort, the report reads.

Not that cost is going to discourage those people who are determined to use military force and justify it on the grounds that we’re teaching Syrian officials a lesson for their use of chemical weapons on civilians.

ALL MILITARY EFFORT is inherently expensive. Cost has never discouraged our war-mindset from kicking into gear in the past. It certainly won’t now.

And let’s be honest. The people who will vote against this particular request by President Barack Obama for Congressional approval to use military force in Syria are largely doing so for their own ideological hang-ups.

OBAMA: The war-time? prez

Perhaps it is the reason I have become apathetic about this issue. I realize it’s going to happen, regardless of whatever opposition (which under typical circumstances I would be inclined to agree with) gets tossed its way.

Or regardless of whatever financial sense Topinka tries to talk us into. Perhaps our focus ought to be on trying to minimize its impact – which might go a long way to containing its cost.

  -30-

U.S. attacking Syria? Of course, no matter what action Congress takes

There’s one thing I’m pretty sure of – President Barack Obama will be giving the order eventually that approves a U.S. military involvement in Syria.

OBAMA: He's going to do what he's going to do

The president has dreams that Congress will unite behind him and actually approve a military action on the grounds that officials in Syria are being inhumane in their use of chemical weapons in their own conflicts.

WHICH MAKES ME wonder if Obama has secretly become a Chicago Cubs fan. His delusions about Congress are as intense as those of Cubs fans who actually expect their favorite ball club to accomplish anything of significance on the playing field.

I fully expect our Congress, in all its inaction, to do a whole lot of nothing with this issue. Which means Obama will have to proceed on his own if he wants to have the U.S. military act in Syria.

I really believe there will be a mental conflict among certain members of Congress – those who usually are knee-jerk in favor of the military will want to vote “yes” will feel a need to vote “no” because this is an Obama initiative.

For partisan reasons, they always vote “no” on anything that the president wants. I suspect that viewpoint will prevail. If only they could get a guarantee that the military effort would fail AND Obama would get all the blame.

THEN, THEY’D BE more than willing to support it! Which is why I question their motives whenever they cite “patriotism” and “love of country.” It comes across as a lot of hooey!

But back to Syria. I’m sure Obama will wind up approving a military act so as to avoid the rhetoric that would inevitably come that he was “weak” and “ineffectual.”

Personally, I have to admit to being swayed (sort of) by an argument made by University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer, who argued against involvement in Syria in part because he’s not swayed by the chemical weapons argument.

For those who don't even know where Syria is!

The theory being that such weapons are so inhumane and torturous that people who use them deserve our contempt and scorn – in addition to the military might of the United States put to use against them.

AS MEARSHEIMER PUT it during an appearance this week on WTTW-TV’s “Chicago Tonight” program, some 40,000 people were killed in the fighting in Syria without chemical weapons. Yet we’re suddenly offended because some 1,400 people died from chemical weapons.

I’m sure the ones who were merely shot to death are just as dead as those who inhaled deadly chemicals. I’m also sure some of those who were shot died painful deaths as well.

Nonetheless, I realize that a large part of the reason why the rest of the world takes the U.S. claims of moral superiority seriously is that we’re willing to take the lead on issues – particularly if force is involved.

At times, it makes U.S. the equivalent of the schoolyard bully, and we’re liked just about as much.

THE POINT BEING that in trying to make up our minds whether our particular members of Congress are justified in voting against Obama, we ought to ditch the idea that there is a morally superior viewpoint.

When this military effort does get underway, it’s going to be ugly. Even under the best of circumstances, there will be a taint remaining for the United States. That’s war, after all!

Although our members of Congress seem to want to keep quiet. The Chicago Tribune reported Wednesday that unofficial tallies of the Illinois congressional delegation (of which Obama himself was once a member) showed a majority being opposed to the president. While the Chicago Sun-Times had only one House member (Adam Kinzinger) definitely for, and one (John Shimkus) opposed -- with everybody else at differing levels of indecision.

Although the Tribune reported that among people who were willing to state a definitive position, it seems that three members were for Obama, three were against, and the other 12 representatives are refusing to commit. Officially, the Senate Foreign Relations cast a vote Wednesday, which put Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., on the record as being in favor of Obama on this issue.

THIS AT A time when the House of Representatives’ leadership (John Boehner for the Republicans and Nancy Pelosi for da Dems) is publicly in support of Obama – a rare convergence of opinions.

Not that all this uncertainty really means much. The outcome is certain.

Obama will do this. Let’s only hope for all of our sakes that the military initiative doesn’t totally screw up against us.

  -30-