Solutions

Solutions on Syria


 

 

To bomb or not to bomb that is the question, whether it is nobler to intervene in a civil war or not? My apologies to Shakespeare for stealing the opening but it fits. Better yet to use Shakespeare is to quote the past and the past of the Mid-east is one of violence and bloody battle. This means before a decision to intervene is made our leaders need to look at the area in terms of why go in, who all is involved, what is to be accomplished, and most importantly is there an exit strategy.

Question number one why go in? The use of chemical weapons by one government on another is outlawed by treaty. Two points here, one Syria never signed the treaty, and two the use was local and a purely internal affair. Iraq used chemical weapons on their own people and we did not intervene. Also they used chemical weapons in the Iran/ Iraq war, again the United States did not intervene and this was an international act. Are we going to intervene because of a sense of moral outrage and the slaughter of innocents? If so then make a list there is a lot of intervening that should have been done, still needs to be done, and will be needed well into the future. These would be the best reasons to go in not because a President said the use and movement of chemical weapons is a red line game changer. Your pride is not a reason to declare war on another country. The world should expect better from the winner of a Nobel Peace Prize.

Moving on who are the players in Syria? Well apparently there are three power blocs. One the current regime, two the Free Syrian Army, and three the jihadists; these are the main players in Syria. So look at each group. The current regime is represented by President Assad, his followers, as well as, Iran, Hezbollah, and Russia. Next would be the Free Syrian Army who claims to want a secular government along the lines of Turkey, and is supported by the West and some of the more moderate Mid-Eastern nations. Before anyone starts celebrating the FSA is anti Jewish and its leader has made many anti Israeli speeches. Now there is al Qaeda and the jihadists form up the third power bloc. So no matter who wins the United States loses and Israel is further threatened.

Is there really an exit plan, and will a small quick strike really be effective? A simple quick strike sounds like a symbolic action much like locking the barn door after the cows have got out. President Assad has had time to disperse and hide his chemical weapons as well as his traditional forces. This means a thorough and extensive campaign will be needed. This no boots on the ground nonsense is also quite worrisome. For those who choose to believe the President and his administration there are four words for you to consider…. Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, and Vietnam. We are still in three of these places and out of one; and that one was a defeat; because of Congress.

So in closing until the administration releases the evidence on the chemical weapon usage and proves that the side they wish to hit is guilty we must refrain from action. Until the administration explains exactly what they want to accomplish, and how they plan to do so we must say no. Until we are told how they intend to determine when the goal is reached we must say no. Until the administration is prepared to effectively guard our borders North, South, East, and West we must say no. Until such time that we are united in our outlook we must say no. Until we are ready to declare war on Syria; and that does mean boots on the ground; there is no choice but no. No. No! NO! To quote many people from the sixties and seventies hell no we won’t go.

God bless us one and all and may he give us wisdom and will to avoid this trap. Well until next week may you have fair winds and a following sea.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *