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.
