Get Serious Not Syria

Civil war is appalling. Our own Civil War cost about 625,000 lives. Appalling! The Rwandan Civil War lasted from 1990 to 1993 in which some 800,000 people were hacked and shot to death. Appalling! The Kosovo Civil War waged from 1991 through 1999 leaving thousands of civilians dead and missing. Appalling!  There have been a reported 59 Civil Wars throughout the world since 1945. Nine of them are listed as still waging. Appalling!

“War is hell,” but do we need to send our best and brightest, not to mention our tax dollars, to hell each time the people of some country can’t “ just get along?” For some mysterious reason, every time folks start fighting within their own country, we wind up sending troops to subdue one side or another, and then make an unappreciated attempt at nation building. Have we not learned through tragic experience that no one will thank us for risking our own lives to help others?

It is sad that chemical weapons have been brought out of the closet and used against civilians in Syria. But who deployed them? Assad says he didn’t do it. If he had decided to use chemical weapons, why would he stop at just 100 or so casualties? On the other hand, what better way to get the West involved that to gas a few of your own “martyrs?”

The Syrian “rebels” have been crying for our help since the first shot was fired, and the West just sets on the fence. Obama publicly drew a “red line” at the use of chemical weapons. Okay, dig up the stash Saddam hid and lob a small one into a non-critical spot, then blame it on the government. Who knows? Could have happened.

I’m no “peacenick.” I am a study of classical war strategists Carl Von Clausewitz and Sun Tzu, though. Both advocate only waging war for political gains. By political, they don’t mean Democrat over Republican. Here, they mean some real gains for your country or state.

There are no gains to be had in Syria for the United States. We have virtually nothing to gain by intervening in the civil matters of the Syrian nation. In fact, it is a lose-lose situation all around.

If we support Assad, we leave a dictator in charge. If we support the rebels, we risk arming terrorists and handing them another place from which to stage attacks on us.

Then there are the monetary costs. General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has clearly outlined to US congressional leaders the risks associated with a fourth major military intervention in a Muslim country. Dempsey listed five options: training the Syrian opposition, launching limited airstrikes on Assad's heavy weapons, implementing a no-fly zone, creating buffer zones, and securing chemical weapons. A training mission would cost at least $500 million initially, according to Dempsey, and the other more aggressive options would likely cost at least $1 billion a month.

Let me reiterate that number: For boots-on-the-ground it would cost you and me ONE-BILLION DOLLARS a month. I suppose that number includes the cost of body bags too.

Now, I like a good war as much as the next guy. In WWI and WWII we came off looking like heroes. In Korea we drew to a stalemate, and in Vietnam we had our rears handed to us, thanks mainly to our indecisive, wishy-washy “leadership.” We just finished feeding American lives to the ungrateful Iraqis, and are about to stop the conveyor belt loaded with American lives and dollars to the meat-grinder in Afghanistan – does anyone have the odds of Karzi lasting the week when we leave?

I know the military has a dilemma of what to do with all the surplus weapons and seasoned soldiers in Afghanistan in 2014, but shipping them to Syria is not a solution. Let those people sort out their own differences. They don’t need us telling them how to build a nation, or foisting our “values” on them. We also don’t need to keep one side or the other in power by dropping off bags of money on the leader’s desk every month. Let’s save the money and American lives for our own problems here at home. God knows we have enough of them.