Thoughts on an NPR commentary by Colin Dwyer on Cruise Missile attack on Syria, April 6, 2017....
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/04/07/523001065/how-is-the-rest-of-the-world-reacting-to-the-u-s-strike-on-syria
If NPR did their homework and are not just trying to be sure their funds do not get cut....it would seem that we should be thinking about reinstating the draft and raising taxes--because this is just the beginning!!!
The world is behind our military strikes and for us to end the war in Syria that has been going on since 2011 that is 5 years going on 6 at the very least.
Experts, and experience, tells us that it is going to take a sizable ground force to bring "peace" or what looks like peace to Syria. We have tried building up this one or that one of the militias in the area. Russia tried building up the government military--but none of this has worked.
And we are not talking about 80 innocent civilians dying here. We are talking about 400,000 and counting--lots of beautiful babies in there. Dying from bombs, bullets, or chemicals is all dying and they did not all die instant peaceful deaths. And that does not even count the ones with scars and disabilities that managed to survive.
And none of the above includes the problem of what to do with all of the displaced people to add to those displaced by the fighting and wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, can not even begin to name them all--but lets just concentrate on Syria for the moment--because when we send in enough troops and materials and backup to end that war, rebuild the country maybe they can just move over and "take care" of the other problems too. And there will not be any displaced people any more and no refugee camps---- solves everything!!! So, who wants to go for it?
I'm too old to sign up, and my kids are pretty much past their military prime, but I have 6 grandkids to put in the mix--two of them prime age, 2 more coming up fast. With any luck we could be through the first stages before they need all of them. Sure would hate to loose all my grandkids--but if it brings peace to the world--who am I to stop progress.
Anyone who knows me, knows I don't want that. BUT, WHAT I DO WANT, is to know what is going on. I hear with my ears one thing, but I see with my eyes something else. Which do we heed? The words we hear? Or, the actions we see with our eyes? And don't start telling me "Oh, we just don't know everything". Of course we don't. But we know plenty if we just don't try to hide from what we know.
So far, from what we all know, a civil war started in Syria at the time of the "Arab Spring". From very early on, it took a different turn than the other "popular" uprisings. Then different sides started backing various militias for different reasons. Arms, money, ammunition poured into the area and prosperous, thriving cities are now rubble heaps of refugees hanging on by their finger tips. How Damascus has fared, in general, as far as quality of life for the average person I do not know--but think they must have experienced some shortages and inconveniences but are still pretty much intact.
And the only thing that makes any sense out of this is that for some reason the "big powers" around the edges want this war to go on and on and on. So everybody outside backs somebody in the ring, and when one side or another looks like it is getting an edge over on the others, someone sends in some reinforcement so the playing field gets evened again. And, to show that we are really concerned about the humanitarian suffering, there are a few lines we draw in the sand--NO SARIN GAS!!!!! We told you that already--now you will have to pay for that we are taking out a runway--oh, yeah, and to get rid of some of the glut in the world's oil supply, we will blow up a couple of fuel storage tanks. So we will be there at X minus Y hours, so get your soldiers out of the way. And they did.
Well no one is going to read this anyway so I will not go into the "new" rules of engagement--and I do not mean the ones that we say "Oh, Trump has changed the rules of engagement, he is not a pussy cat like Obama was!!!" I mean, the overarching rules of engagement of modern day warfare--they are pretty obvious also--we know what they are, but sure do not want to discuss them because of some of the humanitarian implications. We all know that it is only lip service when it suits the parties involved that we give to the Geneva Convention these days. And that WE is a global WE. But that is the subject of another rant.
