What do you think would be the result if the U.S goes through with striking Syria? [edit]
It would be the first step into the quicksand that would drag us into a sectarian battle in a Muslim country. The thought of getting embroiled in this conflict has been literally turning my stomach.
Let's not kid ourselves, in the big picture, intervention into this war is about the US maintaining power and influence in an oil-rich region of the world.
It won't be Vietnam because they will never commit ground troops
I really wish I could believe that. Secretary of State John Kerry said he couldn't promise there would be no ground invasion, and of course he can't promise something like that. At least Senators McCain and Graham were honest about their goals of a regime change in Syria. I really wish someone could explain how you bring about regime change without troops on the ground. Maybe our CIA could funnel massive amounts of US taxpayer money and weapons to the opposition. That worked out real great when we supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, or Saddam Hussein and his military in the Iran-Iraq War.
Once the US strikes Assad's military we will not allow him to remain in power. Assad is an ally of Iran. Removing Assad and facilitating a puppet regime in Syria that will not align with Iran is the clear strategic goal of the US in this destabilized region of the Middle East. It's pretty clear how the US would like to shape the Middle East so that it's friendly to our national interests of having access to the region's oil. How that would actually play out, is an absolute nightmare.
You thought we had a debt problem already, wait till we get sucked into another Middle East war. Perhaps we can just stop funding public education to counter the increase in military spending and the funneling of US taxpayer money into rebuilding a Middle East government. An uneducated citizenry also makes it much easier to sell the idea of war to, so it would be a win-win.
I still believe the unedited Wolfowitz Doctrine provides a brutally honest appraisement of the US government and Western powers interest in the Middle East which still holds true to this day.
"In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine
“Right now we are denying that we want to overthrow the regime, but the fact is when you are bombing targets, government targets in Syria, and there are rebels trying to overthrow the government, you are, whether you say it or not, trying to overthrow the government. But you're only doing it a little bit,” said Cato analyst Benjamin Friedman.
http://www.voanews.com/content/us-military-leaders-lay-out-goals-for-syria-attack/1743665.html
It's important to hear what our military leaders were previously saying about getting involved in the Syrian Civil War. Now that there's a massive push by our government to intervene, I wouldn't be surprised if those same generals change their tune or simply say nothing. "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more"
But the four-star Army general warned: “It is not enough to simply alter the balance of military power without careful consideration of what is necessary in order to preserve a functioning state. We must anticipate and be prepared for the unintended consequences of our action. Should the regime’s institutions collapse in the absence of a viable opposition, we could inadvertently empower extremists or unleash the very chemical weapons we seek to control.”
The use of such force is “no less than an act of war,” he said, and would come at a time of growing fiscal restraint on the Pentagon.
“Some options may not be feasible in time or cost without compromising our security elsewhere,” he said.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/07/martin-dempsey-syria-options-costly-risky-94588.html
I might have to go make my own peace beads like tinker. No War! No War! No War!
