Syria is not worth American lives and money

The nature of the situation should cause us to reconsider getting involved. Photo: Flickr / Allyson Neville-Morgan

WASHINGTON, September 2, 2013 — Why should we be in Syria? What are our interests there? Is it worth spending billions of dollars and risking American lives to help either side — the side with the dictator who uses chemical weapons on civilians, or the side supported by al-Qaeda?

Ask most people about Syria, and they will tell you it’s a country on the other side of the world. They may know that our relationship with the regime led by President Bashar al-Assad is not friendly. They know that they don’t want to squander more American wealth to play sides in a country they don’t understand, to enter a conflict that has left almost 100,000 dead.


SEE RELATED: Questions on Obama’s intent in Syria and the Middle East


The rebels were initially domestic freedom fighters, but they have turned into a coalition force primarily led by radical Islamists, including al Qaeda. Both sides of the conflict are hostile to the United States.

“There is only one outcome that the United States can possibly favor: an indefinite draw,” says Edward N. Luttwak, a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in the New York Times. A decisive victory on either side would be a loss for the United States.

Unfortunately, President Obama marked a “red line” in August 2012, when he threatened “enormous consequences” if chemical weapons were used by either side. With evidence surfacing that Assad used sarin gas, a deadly chemical weapon, on civilians, Obama has been put into a bind.

In order to prove that his threats are not empty, the president must act against Assad if the intelligence is true. Unfortunately, the “shot across the bow” that Obama is advocating will have little effect. And he’s forgotten rule number one of war: If you’re going to strike, don’t tell the enemy where and when.


SEE RELATED: US Syria strike is against International Law, but it’s not the first


Americans are hesitant to embrace military action that resembles the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are tired of long “nation-building” campaigns that are difficult to connect with American interests. 

Conor Friedersdorf of The Atlantic says, “It is certainly the sort of humanitarian assistance most likely to make us bitter enemies, which inevitably happens when you pick a side and start killing some of the people on it.”

The British Parliament agrees; they just voted down a motion to initiate military action in Syria.

As a leader in the world, we have a responsibility to stand up against the use of chemical weapons. Condemning a regime that breaks the rules is important, but sometimes it is just not enough. Threats only work so long as the consequences of ignoring them are immediate and severe.


SEE RELATED: Obama on Syria: The worst foreign policy president - ever


The evidence and circumstances in Syria are not enough to warrant a military attack. Obama has failed to convince the United Nations Security Council and was notably silent when the rebels allegedly used sarin gas last May. If we want to stand up against chemical weapons, we would need to support both sides. The best way to do that in this case is to avoid getting involved.


READ MORE: Consider Again



This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities @ WashingtonTimes.com. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING TWTC CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

More from Consider Again
 
blog comments powered by Disqus
Danny Huizinga

Danny Huizinga is currently studying at Baylor University, pursuing three business majors in Economics, Finance, and Business Fellows with minors in mathematics and political science. Although originally from the Chicago area, he is a Texas resident. Danny writes a political blog called Consider Again located at consideragain.com and is also syndicated at The College Conservative, RedState, PolicyMic, and the Baylor Lariat.


Follow him on Twitter or Google+

Contact Danny Huizinga

Error

Please enable pop-ups to use this feature, don't worry you can always turn them off later.

Question of the Day
Featured
Photo Galleries
Popular Threads
Powered by Disqus