I’m going to go on the record now and say that this “Syria
thing” is a bad idea. Despite my sometimes contrary view to US policy, I love
my country. And for us to get involved, in the way were looking at getting
involved, is a real bad idea.
Now first let’s clarify, the United States isn’t the only nation
whose government thinks that military intervention is a good idea. France,
Germany and the UK also feel that a military strike and appropriately severe
punishment of the Syrian government’s actions are warranted. However, because
we have the vastly larger military resources, everybody wants us to lead it.
And while it is true that we have those resources, we don’t necessarily have
the money, unless we want to bank on the contracts for rebuilding Syria later bolstering our economy (hello KBR and DynCorp). However, cost is hardly the only reason
we shouldn’t be involved in a military fashion.
#1: This has been going on for two and half years…for two
and a half years, innocent civilians have been caught in the crossfire,
targeted from government helicopters, shot, blown up and reportedly tortured.
Two and a half years of killing, two and a half years of people around the Middle
East saying that if the west didn’t get involved, we were complicit and for two
and a half years we ignored it. Suddenly, dubious video surfaces showing what
appear to be casualties of chemical warfare, and now it’s a crime against
humanity? What was it before-a day at Disneyland? All war is ugly, all war is a
crime against humanity, all war causes generations of loss to the men and women
and children involved and to the nations fighting. All war causes soldiers to “get
dead”, families to be shattered, and children to lose parents. And lately, if
not as far back as the beginning of warfare, all war causes some opportunistic
organizations to get rich. I don't see the huge difference between conventional war and the use of chemical weapons, chemicals are painful and horrible to watch...but so are explosions. Maybe wars should be fought in the most brutal way
possible, scores of dead should line the streets, prisoners ought not to be
taken, and anybody in the kill zone should be killed. Buildings reduced to gravel, infrastructure destroyed, the smoke seen from thousands of miles away. I'm talking "scorched earth". Armies deployed
until the fighting is over. Maybe if we as humans fought this way, the people so anxious
to go to war might not be so damn excited about it next time.
#2: The Governments of some western nations want to initiate
military action, but in recent polls the citizens of both the UK and the US are showing no
desire to do any such thing . Some polls show support for military intervention at only 9-25%. The governments of all western nations, regardless of their specific
system of government are in place to represent the will of the people. 25% is
clearly not the will of the people.
#3: Who did what exactly? And do we have any proof of it?
Bashar Al-Assad looks like a mad scientist or evil genius from a cartoon…but is
he? Was he really stupid enough to use chemical weapons on his own people? Knowing
that the world was watching, knowing that the use of such weapons would be
crossing lines and therefore almost surely provoke a response? Or was it a
set-up? Was it staged? And if so, who staged it? Point being that unless that information is secret (and it may well be), we don't have the answers.
#4: The rebel/opposition groups are splintered a minimum of
three ways. At least one of those groups has serious ties to Al-Qaeda and doesn’tlike the US, the west, or Israel and wants to install a strict Islamist state in Syria. Not a secular government, not a democratic government, but rather a fundamentalist/extremist
government…are we sure we want to help them to that end?
#5: What’s the plan? What exactly are we going to strike? Civilians
still live in Damascus. Reporters are still reporting from Damascus, what are
we going to hit? What’s the strategic plan here…we have said before that we
have no intentions of installing a new regime, that job lies with the Syrian
people, so what’s the plan, fight the war for the guys who want stuff to
change, turn the tide in their favor and then watch as they massacre the
Government side? Does anybody think that Assad will just leave, and the
opposition groups will unite and hold elections next year? That those who
supported the Government won’t be slaughtered en-masse? Has anybody looked at Iraq lately? How’s that
going?
So what should we do? Continue ignoring the death?
I propose that instead of a strike, we take a three pronged approach. First of all, deal with casualties. The ICRC is overwhelmed. We have the resources to bolster them medically, logistically and administratively. We have the resources to evacuate and treat the most injured. And we have four warships of the coast with air support that are prepared to blow anybody who thinks about stopping us with a hostile act, all the way back to the stone-age...maybe even prehistory. Second, It's time to help out Turkey and Lebanon with Refugees, entire families have been displaced, lives have been destroyed, all belongings have been lost. We can spread out the rest of those refugees between intervention countries. Nobody with serious criminal history, nobody with political ties or military ties to either side. Just the families stuck in a refugee camp where they've been for the past 2 years. And I know, especially after Boston, nobody in the states is all that happy with the whole idea of a refugee, so lets be real about it, take off our politically correct suit for a minute and just tell them how it is. (i.e.: "The goal in the US is at least partial assimilation, you have to learn the language, you have to contribute and we don't care where you came from but you have to follow the laws or face immediate deportation") Between Middle Eastern states, Asian states, European states, African states, and North and South American states (all of which have voiced concern and condemnation), there is plenty of room. 5 year refugee status would allow the area to stabilize, all the idiots to kill themselves off, and not further create a 5 year gap in the lives of refugees in the camps. Thirdly, its time to shame Russia, China and Iran (who has slightly changed its tone in the last 24 hours) . They've done more than just stand by, they've blocked everything at the UN, even peacekeepers. Launching missiles is a pretty drastic step, so before its done, I think President Obama, PM David Cameron, and President Hollande (to name a few) ought to stand on a stage, even three different stages and just plain as day say "Hey President Putin and president XI Jinping, this blood is on your hands, your ally has committed atrocities, and its 100% attributable to you, your donations and your political support". Its time, they've blocked the UN at every turn, its time to hold them publicly accountable for the blood on their hands.
I think that if we take a serious look, we'd find that a preponderance of the evidence shows a lack of US understanding when it comes to Middle East affairs. We don't know the culture, we don't know the tribes, the language has many dialects, and the religion is as complex as anything we've ever dealt with. I believe it foolhardy at best, to enter a region like that, at our level of understanding with a gun, yet having no will to use it to the bitter end. Small attacks will anger both sides, regime change will cause further instability, and both sides are friends of terrorist organizations. We have no place in this conflict, except in a humanitarian sense. Mark my words, an attack is a mistake and will lead to the further loss of American lives. I truly hope that the president seeks congressional approval, and that congress sends him packing.
So you've read what amounts to my opinion, or maybe you just skimmed it. As always, know that it's just my opinion, and "opinions are like..."well you know how that saying goes.
If you want to help, both of these organizations could always use it.
No comments:
Post a Comment