Total Pageviews

Monday, December 3, 2012

Iraq/WMDs part II?


I first read about the rumors of Syria using WMDs on its rebels a couple of day ago and much like many of the commentators after the piece above, I did indeed suffer flashbacks to Iraq's “Massing of WMDs” debacle not that long ago. Still my main focus wasn't really on the article but more on the comments left afterward. People weighed in both for and against (Mostly against) any attempts by the US to step in to stop the use of WMDs against Syria's rebel forces. The comments really got me pondering all the sides and this is what I have come up with.
The argument basically boils down to “Should the US get involved with yet another foreign conflict even as we wind down from the last two” and it is a very good question. As a nation, we are massively in debt and our troops are so very tired. Why should we risk any more of our sons and daughters lives in a war that isn't even our fight?
Those against (which I am technically one of) argue that this simply isn't our fight. They call out that it is not America's job to be the policemen of the world. (Although I would technically point out that this nation has basically made it our job by insisting under pretty much every national/military accord signed by the nations of the world since around WWII be dominated by US forces. This includes UN Security Forces BTW.) They argue that we didn't get involved when Syrians were killing Syrians with more conventional weapons so why get involved now. They point out that a sizable chunk of our debt (Around 5 Billion Dollars currently) is because we have been fighting two very long wars by borrowing money. Basically we shouldn't get involved because this isn't our fight and we can't afford it. I agree on purely monetary reasons, not moral ones.
Those for argue that it is the moral responsibility of everyone to help those who need help. They argue that if positions were reversed, we would want people to help us. Somehow they feel that the threat of using weapons that could literally kill 1000s of people pushes us to a higher moral imperative than the fact that Syria's leaders have been achieving pretty much the same thing with standard bombs and bullets. If we didn't have a moral obligation a year ago, then we don't have one now.
The sad part is, I doubt this sudden push by the US and other nations to stop Syria is based off any altruistic feelings on our part. Notice that no real efforts were done to help as long as the threat was contained within Syria's borders. But now that Syria MIGHT be planning on using WMDs, governments such as Israel and Turkey are suddenly recalling that Syria has missiles capable of carrying said WMDs into neighboring nations.
So will we once again be forced into a war in a country where neither side really likes us and neither side would really want us there? Will more of our brave armed forces be forced to sacrifice their lives? Will the machine of war grind on for another 10 years making billions for the Arms Manufacturers, but costing us so much more? The next few weeks will tell.

No comments:

Post a Comment