As our military makes preparations for a series of limited military strikes against Syria for its purported use of chemical weapons on civilians, and an extremely confident Obama continues to meet with key Congressional leaders from both parties in an effort to sell his plan for a “limited” attack on Syria, many Americans, myself included, are left wondering why we’re getting involved in yet another Middle Eastern conflict. Certainly the use of chemical weapons is atrocious and in violation of International Law and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad should be punished for his actions, but why must the United States play the lone ranger in the administration of justice? Several of our allies including England have chosen not to support a military action yet “Obama Man” has pledged to “send a clear message to Assad, to degrade his capabilities to use chemical weapons, not just now but also in the future.” Even if he has to do it alone.
The U.S. has been meddling in Middle Eastern affairs for nearly 70 years now and it’s not because of any great$ love or concern for its people. No, the real reason for our involvement was born of selfishness. The area as we know is rich in oil, a prize we wanted to share in at any cost. If it wasn’t for oil we would have stayed out of their business. No that probably not true we have a history of sticking our nose in other countries business. Since WW II the US has been involved in wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan and countless skirmishes involving training, the use of ground troops or other special forces, air or naval support or missile strikes. Places like Cambodia, Grenada, the Persian Gulf, Bosnia, Lybia, Sudan, Yemen, and Nigeria to name but a few. The list goes on and on.
But does America really want to become involved in yet another controversial Middle Eastern military action? I think not. As of yesterday only 9% of Americans support military action against Syria yet Obama is adamant about his limited strike plan. The American people are war weary. Our most recent military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan has made them so. Many believe, and rightly so, that we have more than enough problems here at home that need to be dealt with and have no business butting our noses into Middle Eastern affairs. According to top military officials a series of “limited” air strikes on Syria could cost us billions of dollars in the long haul, especially if America provides training for Syrian rebels and sets up a no fly zone over Syria. Billions of dollars friends! We’ve already spent more than a trillion dollars on military actions in the Middle East. When is enough enough? You know damn well that money could be put to better use here at home.
Let’s face facts people, the U.S. will never be the peacemakers in the Middle East. We will never end their Holy War, we can’t resolve their issues. The Middle East has been in turmoil for over 3000 years. Today’s Middle East isn’t really much different than the Middle East of Ancient history. It is a powder keg waiting to explode. Let’s stay the hell out of Syrian business and let the United Nations deal with the chemical warfare issue.
So now it’s a simply awaiting game to see if Congress votes to support Obama’s limited attack on Syria. I gotta tell you I don’t like the term “limited.” Then you throw the word “series” behind it and I really get worried. How many air strikes are in a series? Who sets the limit? Gotta wonder. More than likely Congress will rally round the flagpole and vote yes, but what if they vote no? Will that be the end of it? Will all this talk about Syrian air strikes be done with? Don’t count on it. Obama has a point to prove and with or without Congressional backing he will proceed with military action against Syria. You can count on it.