Thoughts on Syria

Note: I generally eschew using my blog space for anything other than humor and true stories of my superhero exploits. However, from time to time, a current event - such as our likely involvement in Syria's civil war - moves me to speaking out. This is one of those times.

I have been watching my Facebook feed with great interest these past couple of weeks, as people continually post about how we should attack Syria. Like pretty much everyone, I am appalled by the usage of chemical weapons anywhere. (Heck, I am appalled by the usage of any weapons of war anywhere, but that's a different kettle of fish altogether). I, too, am particularly appalled by the fact that children are being killed.

However, and this is a BIG HOWEVER, we need to remember that once we start bombing Syria, several terrible things are going to happen:

1. Many of the innocent kids we are trying to protect will die in the fight. How's that for irony?
2. We will be committing thousands more of our sons and daughters to die on foreign soil when we already have thousands dying in Iraq and Afghanistan.
3. We won't achieve a single thing other than satisfying our country's penchant for violence. We can placate ourselves by saying that we're just doing some bombing - you know, to protect the kids - but we all know that it will end up being more than that. The bombing won't stop the civil war in Syria. Once we're in, we're in. And it won't be long before flag-draped caskets and soldiers missing limbs and their minds start coming home from Syria.

The downside to all this rah-rah, let's kill 'em all sentimentality that I hear pretty much every day now is that kind of thinking is very shortsighted and a bit late if you ask me. Where was all of this "invade Syria" stuff when children were dying there the old fashioned way - you know, with bombs and machine guns? I get that chemical weapons are a global no-no (as they well should be) but I think it's interesting that we didn't get up in arms when the Syrian government started slaughtering women and children as a deterrent to the rebel forces - something they've been doing since 2011. Those killings are just now raising our hackles because the alleged usage of chemical weaponry brought their civil war into our homes on CNN.

I also think it's interesting that so many people are so eager to join the side of the rebels. Do some reading about the rebel forces (some that have ties to Al Qaeda) and then tell me if you really want to back either horse in this mess. Do we really want to arm the rebel forces only to have those weapons used on us at a later date? Do we really want to fight side-by-side with terrorists who hate our country?

I'm not sure that there is a good guy in this fight other than the innocent, non-combatants. If we are going to liberate those innocents - in Syria or any other part of the war-torn Middle East - then we better be prepared for a full-scale invasion that ends with the U.S. running its flag up over the whole of the Middle East (which is a ludicrous idea, I know). I just don't see any way this problem is solved with American bombs and soldiers in a temporary engagement.

What does winning in Syria look like for the U.S.? I'm not sure that we know anymore since we haven't decisively won a war since World War II. We intervene in the affairs of other countries with regularity and we kill off a bunch of our young people in the process, but what exactly is being accomplished? How much safer is the Middle East or parts of Asia that our soldiers have fought in since the 1950s?

Don't think for a second that I am a pacifist or anti-military. I am both willing to fight to protect our country and I am pro-military. I simply do not want to see more of our kids dying in wars that don't involve us. I am pro-military to the point that I don't want to see any of our soldiers dying unless it's absolutely necessary - unless the very freedom or safety of our country and its people is at stake. As a parent, I would not want to send either of my children to fight in Syria, and am thankful that they are not yet old enough to get involved in that mess.

Yes, you can say that we have a moral obligation to defend innocents everywhere, but until we can defend the innocents in our own country, I am not so sure that we ought to be out defending the innocents of another - especially when our idea of defense involves bombing their country and turning their homes into rubble. This is a war that is being fought in the urban areas of Syria, and there is no way our involvement doesn't create more carnage and more refugees.

Instead, I would like to see much of the money that we put into our various war efforts placed into programs for feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless and cleaning up the drug problems in our country before we spend billions fighting a war in Syria that isn't our fight. We have so many problems here at home that need addressed. I know there are many good people working to alleviate the social issues in our country, but we don't give them near enough money or support to actually win those battles. I believe that's largely because we're too busy trying to be the world's police force.

Being 100% honest, however, I don't know what the solution is. Standing by and watching kids die makes my stomach churn just like yours. I wish I could say "do this, not that" but I don't have a solution for the problems in Syria, much less Afghanistan, Iraq or wherever the next nut-job will begin slaughtering his people. What I do know is this: the United States cannot continue sending its sons and daughters abroad to fight wars that we cannot win.

The very definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and yet expecting different results. And I believe getting involved in Syria's civil war would be just that - insane.