Should U.S. Send Military into Syria Unilaterally?

27 Jun

My short answer/opinion is “No”.

 What happens if no one intervenes?

 If no one intervenes, the powerful military machine in Syria likely quells what it sees as an internal rebellion.  In the government’s view, the cost of such a quelling, in lives of innocents, is only a part of the lesson that the populace must learn.  The gov/mil might even consider that the result from indiscriminate killing, bringing a quicker end to the uprising, will cost fewer lives overall than if they were trying to be ultra-selective (sort of the logic we used when dropping nuclear bombs on Japan in 1945).

Syria’s government could reasonably ask, why should the U.S. choose Syria as its target for intervention?  Not only is this an internal affair, but intervention in Syria’s internal affairs cannot even be justified on humanitarian grounds.  For if that were the case, the U.S. would be intervening in several locations throughout the world – and we’re not.  So why pick on Syria?

 And so what if the Syrian government tries to crack down on communications, internet usage, etc.  Where does it say that the government of a sovereign nation cannot control internal communications media?  North Korea has been doing it for decades, and there doesn’t seem to be international outrage over that.  And many other governments around the world have considerable control over the media inside their borders, including Russia and China.  Aren’t they bigger problems than Syria?.

 What is the plus for intervening?

 First, going in and stopping the bloodshed seems like a humanitarian move.  But we can’t stay forever, and bloodshed may return as soon as we leave. 

Second, it is possible that a newer, friendlier government might emerge. 

 What would be the hope?

 Of course, the hope is that we would help establish a “democracy” that will be friendly toward the West (the United States, in particular), and more open to establishing a lasting peace in the Middle East.

 What would be the LIKELY outcome?

 In Syria, direct intervention may well shift the bloodshed from Syrian civilians to American citizens (our troops).  Or shift the whole uprising, and the opposition to same, into overdrive, resulting in many more lives being lost.

 It is reasonably likely that the Syrian people, and the international community, would come to resent the American presence, either because of the presence itself, or because of the outcome – a new government that could be worse than the Assad government (as could very well happen in Egypt and Libya (and the jury is still out in Iraq), and as HAS happened in Afghanistan and Pakistan).  There is a reasonable probability that unfriendly people (toward the West) will come into power, just as they have in other places.

 We only need look at other interventions and revolutions in the Middle Eastern and other Muslim nations.  So far, not a very good record.  The government in Iraq is shaky, at best.  Egypt is moving toward being a religious state – and a hater of the West – and that’s IF the military doesn’t simply take over.  Afghanistan and Pakistan don’t like us very much.  The Palestinians, though not a nation (yet), seem to be looked at as a state, and all our millions upon millions in foreign aid to them have not won their cooperation or friendship.  The final outcomes in Libya and Tunisia are not determined, as yet.


So – My long answer/opinion on whether or not we should unilaterally intervene militarily in Syria is still “No”.






Please reply here -- I value your thoughts

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: