The Senate and the Congress are poised to vote on President Obama's request to launch an attack on Syria. Let's stop for a quick moment and try to analyze what exactly the proposed military action is going to achieve.
1. Sending a message to President al-Assad that the usage of chemical weapons is wrong and "punish" him?
Maybe, if his government was the one who initiated the attack. Okay, the evidence may show that sarin was indeed used - but by whom? Are we absolutely sure the so called rebels did not use the gas? Where is the evidence that it has been used by the military? Stating a national security reason to decline making this evidence public is not good enough. Additionally, does either side care about what's wrong and what's not while they kill each other? I don't think so.
2. Will this stop the war and all the atrocities committed by both sides, as it's always done during a civil war?
By no means. It's not even intended to stop the Syrians from fighting. Nobody at either side will change their mind no matter what. Keep in mind, it's not merely political reasons they fight about, it's Shia as the ruling elite against Sunnis.
3. Will this help the rebels, some of which are reportedly associated with al-Qaeda and some of them known to commit atrocities?
It could, mostly in their morality. Nevertheless, they would not like us any more than they do now. I'd say, not at all. Is that what we want?
4. Are we going to go ahead and kill some people from the Syrian government or military? Which people exactly? What is the expected outcome?
5. Will this help with American image around the world?
This attack will hurt it even more as Americans will be looked at as warmongers, exercising their power against a smaller and weaker country ones again. Were Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq not enough, no matter the cause?
6. Will this show to everyone America's determination to be a "world's police"?
Yes it will, and this should undoubtedly add to the widespread hate and disgust about the policies of our country which is there already. Do we want that? What moral reason do we have for that role? And are we even capable of carrying it out both in present time and in the future?
7. Are we trying to divert some harm to America? No, President Obama declared that he could not state there is an "imminent, direct threat" to American people from Syrian conflict. So why are we going to war, even a "limited war"?
8. We talked the talk, now we want to walk the walk?
Come on, we are not going to start a bar fight. We are starting the war. Again. And with a cause that would not look so good a few years from now. Not even for many people currently supporting the action.
Let's take a look around the world. G20 summit did not support it. European Union - ditto. The Arab League is against it. BRICS block (Brazil, Russia,India, China and South Africa), representing almost 3.5 billion people, are against it. British Parliament voted against it. France & some others support it, but is it just in political sense. Maybe they are willing to help with logistics as well. No, merci bouquet .You guys want to help - go to the front lines yourself. Or send your own bombers with your own pilots.
So why are we even discussing that? Don't we have our own problems at home? Don't we have a budget deficit which prevents us from running some programs to help our own people? Wars are expensive. And even if no ground troops will be used this time, our people will die in logistics and other accidents. These are always on the rise under while carrying out military actions.
And who could promise us that there is not going to be the escalation of war? How many times it happen in history, both ours & around the world? The conflicts start small & than grow on everyone like a mushroom. Let's call on Congress and Senate to stop that before it's too late.
