Tag: Syria

Syria – A Moral Dilemma

Aleppo
Aleppo, Syria

That this discussion is falling on Holocaust Remembrance Day should at least give everyone a pause and a thought about Syria today.

This is a test for President Donald Trump!

Try searching for a strategic value of Syria to the United States on the internet and you will come up empty handed.  That may be the reason the Donald Trump said just eight days ago that America would be leaving very soon.  Our only reason that I can find for being there is to protect the hundreds of thousands of civilians who have been the victims of the continuous bombardment of their cities and towns by Bashar al-Assad’s air force.

A pin prick bombardment by America of Syrian army bases by the United States will not change Assad’s attack on his own people.

If the United States is actually concerned with the well-being of the Syrian people it is obvious that America would have to send a much larger army than the 2,000 or so troops currently there.  This brings up the question of America’s willingness to protect people everywhere from genocide.  Make no mistake Assad’s attacks are a form of genocide.

America’s history in protecting victims of genocide should be obvious.  Most recently the Rohingya Muslims of Myanmar (Burma) is the best example of pretending nothing was happening.  Rwanda is another example.  Historically America refused asylum for Jews attempting to escape the Holocaust during WII.

President Bill Clinton intervention in Bosnia is an example of America standing up to genocide.

No one seems to know or understand the mind of Donald Trump.  If he were to stop the killing of people in Syria he would go down in history as a man who really does care about people.     

Opposition to the Involvement of the U.S.A. In Syria

I Oppose the Involvement of the U.S.A. In Syria.

Some event in the future could change my mind.  However, at this time there is no justification for our entry into the Syrian Civil War.  After writing this piece I read in the Los Angeles Daily News that there was a protest march in downtown Los Angeles that was objecting to the possible intervention of the USA in Syria.  For a change I am not alone.

On July 25, 2013 The number of dead in Syria‘s civil war had passed 100,000, according to a United Nations report.

200 missiles at $569,000 each is over $11 million.  Who said the military-industrial complex isn’t alive and well?  1,000 people have been killed by the use of chemical weapons but at least 40,000 civilians have been killed by conventional weapons.  If the United States is concerned about human rights why aren’t we concerned about those deaths?

So the first question is how will bombarding Syria for three days change their behavior?  No one that I have heard or read believes there will be any impact.

Is there a moral imperative that we become involved?  The United   States has taken on the mantle of “the right thing to do.”  It remains to be seen if President Obama will have the courage and the will to take steps that many American oppose.

The third question is if there is no impact of a three day missile attack what will the next move be for the United   States?

  • Will we invade? Probably not as most Americans are opposed to any involvement.
  • Will we resort to more bombardment?  Maybe.
  • Will we create no fly zones? Possibly.

Setting aside the morality issue the other question is what will Syria’s neighbors and Russia do if we involve ourselves in their civil war?  Are we prepared to face down those that would oppose our involvement?

The Assad regime has a faithful army.  The truth is that there are large numbers of Syrians who support the regime.  The opposition apparently consists of al Qaeda supported groups that are among the rebel’s most successful warriors.  If they win, enemies of the United States will be stronger and more emboldened.  So just exactly why are we taking any action to protect their insurgency?  The children?  Among the tens of thousands killed in Syria there have been many children.  We only care about those children killed by gas.  What kind of logic is this?

JORDAN-US-SYRIA-REFUGEES-KERRY

An aerial view shows the Zaatari refugee camp on July 18, 2013 near the Jordanian city of Mafraq, some 8 kilometers from the Jordanian-Syrian border. (MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)

I see this civil war as an effort by Assad to drive those opposing him out of Syria.  Different reports vary but from 1 million to 2.5 million people have left the country.  There was even a televised report of Israeli hospitals treating some victims of the war.  Once opposition has been driven out the war will be over.

I do not have a solution.  No matter who wins this war, there are no benefits to the United States.  Chemical weapons are not a consequential part of this war.

Syria – Feel Good War Efforts Are a Waste of Life and Wealth

It is not just President Obama that is facing a dilemma about what actions to take in Syria.  Almost every leading congressman and senator has mixed feelings over what actions to take.

The reason is that a win by the Assad regime or the rebels result in equally troubling consequences.

As a benevolent dictator Assad has kept a lid on sectarian hatred that has enabled Syrian minorities to live in relative peace.  Assad has not been continuously at war with Israel but at the same time has provided the sanctuary to the leader of Hamas.  He has permitted the transfer of weapons across his country from Iran to Hezbollah in Lebanon.  In an Arab war or war with the United States, he would be allied with Iran.

The rebels are dominated by Muslim extremists (Muslim Brotherhood supported by Iran and al-Qaeda that are supported by contributions from around the world).  They appear to be in agreement that Israel must be obliterated and continuing attacks on Western Europe and America by any means.

Today’s Los Angeles Times has a front page article, More harm than good in strikes?, about the success of air attacks on nations that have defied American will or wishes.  The resulting consequences of those attacks have been mediocre at best.  The article’s words are “The type of campaign expected in Syria has a poor track record.”  Sited are the two major bomb and cruise missile episodes against Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi government and the 1986 bombing of Muammar Gaddafi’s Lybia.  While all the attack weapons hit their targets, those events had achieved little.  Even the invasion and removal of Saddam Hussein from Iraq is in dispute (there are almost daily reports of bombings in that country).

Barack Obama’s mistake was drawing a “red line.”  Americans are tired of war.  We do not have the man power or the persuasive skills to change the behavior of any society.  Just yesterday I read of Buddhists setting fire to the homes of Muslims in Myanmar (Burma).  Should America march into that country?  Of course our military-industrial complex will say, Yes.

As sad as the gassing of innocent people is to most of us, there is little we can do to stop the carnage unless we send troops into Syria.  Then a few years later we will withdraw and the carnage will resume.

The Syrian Dilemma

Barack ObamaJune 14, 2013

This article was originally posted on April 28, 2013.  Nothing has really changed since then except the White House now confirms that Assad has used chemical weapons.  Jeffrey Goldberg posted his opinion today (June 14, 2013) on bloomberg.com that simply reinforces my views. “Five Depressing Thoughts About Arming Syria’s Rebels” is worth reading.

—

President Obama made public his opinion that the use or movement of chemical weapons would be a “red line for the United   States.”  He said that in 2012.  Now there is evidence that those kinds of weapons were used in small quantities.

That puts the president in a box if he really does not want to become involved in the Syrian Civil War.  No action by the United States indicates to the world that our words mean nothing.  That will frighten our friends around the world.

Republican congressmen and senators are using this situation to paint the president in the worst possible light.  Mike Rogers (R-MI) appeared on Charlie Rose on Bloomberg TV on Saturday April 27 where he demanded leadership by the president on this subject.  He proposed a variety of vague actions the president should take.  However, when asked what specific actions the president should take he became even more vague and said we should not “put boots on the ground” in Syria.

There is the problem.  Republicans and Democrats alike want the United   States to take action but stop short of putting American troops in Syria.  No wonder. The outcome in Iraq and Afghanistan has been dismal.  Iraq appears to be on the verge of a civil war. Afghanistan will probably be overrun by the Taliban in most of that country, with the exception of Kabul, once American troops have mostly withdrawn.

The Syrian test is obvious.   How much gas can Bashar Assad use and still avoid entry of the United States into their war?  Is it the number of people killed?  Ten is OK but 100 aren’t?  To me the question ought to be, when Assad falls what will happen to those chemicals?  He won’t fall?

Reports appearing yesterday in the Los Angeles Times are that the number of business men and industrialists leaving Damascus for cities outside Syria is on the rise.  They can see the hand writing on the wall.

Articles like this, Lawmakers: Syria chemical weapons could menace US are meant to prepare Americans for another war.  This reminds me of the scare tactics used by the George W. Bush administration to justify the invasion of Iraq.  The difference might be that Barack Obama wants to avoid war.  Then again may be not.  After all his directions have been even more aggressive than Bush’s.  Obama did catch and kill Osama bin Laden.  Drones are now utilized far more than those days of the Bush administration.  The Strait of Hormuz is regularly patrolled by the U.S. Navy.