Syria in a Nutshell (revised)

      

  The Syrian civil war began mid-March 2011 and has escalated since then. The battles are between forces loyal to the Syrian Government and rebels trying to oust the regime of Bashar al Assad.  After the use of chemical weapons by the government, much of the international community has proposed plans to aid the rebels via military intervention.  Speaking on potential intervention by the United States, Senator Rand Paul said, “The war in Syria has no clear national security connection to the United States and victory by either side will not necessarily bring into power people to the United States. U.S. involvement in Syria is complicated, unwanted, and would bring both economic and political consequences.

 

       To understand the situation in Syria, one must know what has happened since the war started and what parties are involved. The civil war started on the 15th of March, 2011 during Arab Spring; a protest movement by natives in the Arab region who were unhappy about local government rules.  The Syrian military was sent in to quell the protests. After months of the military containing protests and firing upon protesters, the protest had turned into an armed rebellion and insurgency by June of the same year. On one side is the Syrian Government and military loyal to President Bashar al Assad, as well as a few militias still loyal to the government, and a small number of Iranian commandos. Syria is also back politically by Iran and Russia (although Russia is not a participant via military). On the opposite side is the Free Syrian Army, which consists of armed citizens and military deserters, as well as a handful of other Islamic militias (some of which are affiliated with Al-Qaeda). By March of 2013, the Assad Regime had been accused of using chemical weapons, using them on occasions after March, and firing upon weapons inspectors from the United Nations. This sparked outrage and condemnation from some of the international community, Including the United States and some of its allies, most can remember U.S. president Obama’s use of the phrase “crossing the red line”. The U.S. government has since been debating as well as planning strikes on Syria; however plans for military intervention have been all but forgotten, since Syria agreed to turn over all chemical weapons to the international community to be destroyed by a certain date.

        If you may have noticed, nothing pertaining to the Syrian Civil war has affected the United States or its citizens. So a big question is why. Why should the United States get involved?  Most research and polls conclude that the majority of Americans are against striking Syria. If our government representatives represent us, and we don’t want something, why continue to push for something we don’t want.  One might wonder who would benefit from involvement in this war. The average American wouldn’t, were not helping any ally. Clearly Syria is a not a friend to the U.S., and the opposing forces aren’t much better. Some of the rebel forces are the same militias that were fighting U.S. troops in Iraq only a few years ago. The only people that would benefit from military intervention in Syria are those involved in the military industrial complex. The military industrial complex is a vicious cycle of civilian providers of military equipment and politicians making both monetary and political gains. These gains come at the expense of the American taxpayer. Also the United States simply does not have the means to expand military at this point, after over a decade of ground war in Iraq and Afghanistan; as well as smaller advisory campaigns in a handful of other countries. I speak not only on the human cost of war, but the monetary cost. The United Sates has spent over 850 billion dollars on war since 2001. That’s money that the taxpayer, their children and grandchildren will have to pay. From the outside looking in, say there’s someone fighting with their brother; and you don’t particular care for either of them, or them for you. Their fight is not affecting you in any way whatsoever. But you don’t like it and you go spend all the money you have as well as some you don’t have on boxing lessons and equipment to stop the fight. And even after you help the brothers still won’t like you. All you’re getting out of it is some dirty looks and losing money.  You would be America. The situation in Syria is complicated and seems to have a lot of angles, however no matter what angle you look at it from; military intervention in Syria makes no sense.

       The Central intelligence Agency has a term called “blow back”. Blow back is the unseen consequences of a solution to a problem. For example, the U.S. funded the Taliban during the soviet invasion of Afghanistan, supplying them with weapons and training. Unbeknownst to us at the time we would be fighting against them just over 20 years later. We toppled Saddam Hussein in just 3 months without knowing it would spark an insurgency and civil war spanning 8 years. Who knows what the blowback of intervening would be. Not only the blowback from people within Syria, but from the international community.  Why take the risk and find out? Why stick our noses where they don’t belong? Why attempt to police the world? It seems the mainstream media nor the politicians beating the war drums won’t answer these questions, moreover when they do they either sidestep the question or defy all logic and reasoning in their answers.

 

       The potential blowback, the total costs to the American people, and the complete lack of concern from the American public should be more than enough reasons not to get involved. The complications of the participants and the lack of relation to U.S. national security make United States military intervention in Syria is unreasonable. The costs outweigh the benefits.