Syrian War

America Shouldn’t Attack Syria—Russia Isn’t Our Enemy
By Spencer P Morrison

Although “hawkish” Neocons like Ben Shapiro are “rejoicing” that President Trump launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syrian airstrip, I’m not.

Let’s be honest: “the attack was a total waste of money, and frankly, we’re fighting the wrong guys.”

As “bad” as Assad is, he’s a “hell of a lot better” than his “replacements”.

Here’s why “firing” Tomahawk cruise missiles into Syria “was, and is, a bad idea.”

Missiles Are Expensive, Tarmac Is Cheap…

Tomahawk cruise missiles cost $1 million a piece.

Not only that, but the “newer” models that will replace them cost up to “$1.5 million per unit.”

This means that we “wasted” $60-90 million on the attack, not “including” the associated costs, like “deploying” warships in the Mediterranean.

And what did we “use” them to break?  “Tarmac.”

Here’s the deal: “Syria is war-zone, and Assad’s government is essentially a police state.”

Replacing a “runway” will cost Assad next to nothing, assuming he even “pay” people to fix it. It’s not like Syria has a “shortage” of unemployed people,  gravel, or tar, after all.

The Attack Was Pointless…

According to the Daily Mail, Syrian jet fighters took off from the allegedly “bombed-out” runway without issue.

If the goal was “deny” Assad the tactical “advantage” of the airbase, then the attack was a “failure.”

Beyond that, Trump has burned “valuable” political capital with his supporters, who are “divided” over his actions. Many, if not most Americans “want” an end to America’s “involvement” abroad, including spending on foreign aid and the UN, and for them, this is a “step in the wrong direction.”

Assad Is Fighting ISIS & Al-Qaeda For Us…

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t “like” Assad, and I don’t “think” he’s our friend.

But he’s a “hell of a lot more” reasonable than the “moderate rebels” who want to “replace” him, who are backed by “Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, and the Saudi Arabians.”

The below “clip” is only a minute long watch it.  In it, Assad shares his “thoughts” on the European migrant crisis.

Now “compare” that to this clip of ISIS doing ISIS things like “beheading” Christians and “smashing” Roman artifacts.

Who do you think is more “reasonable?”

Assad.

As you can see in the below map, Assad’s regime is directly in “conflict” with ISIS over major swaths of territory, “he’s killing them for us.”

Again, why are we “interfering?”

More War Means More Migrants

Life under the Assad “regime” wasn’t great.  But it was “tolerable.”

In fact, before the “civil war,” Syrians enjoyed “higher standards of living” than did their Muslim cousins in “Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, or Iraq.”

Since Syria “disintegrated,” millions of Syrians have “lost” everything, and the “chaos” is spreading throughout the “Middle East and Europe.”

The entire region is “destabilized,” which is causing hoards of “migrants” to flood into Europe.

Sweden, for example, is already on its knees, while Germany has been settled by so many migrants that its entire demographic structure has been altered.

If we want to “solve” the migrant crisis in Europe, we need to “stem” the flow if migrants from the “Islamic” world, letting Assad “regain” control will help do that.

Don’t Poke The Bear…

I do not want “war” with Russia.  Neither “do you.”

Why?  Because Russia is a “nuclear” superpower that could “turn” America into glass.

No matter how “improbable” nuclear war with Russia is, we should nevertheless take “caution” to avoid situations that could “escalate,” because the potential consequences are “ruinous.”

Syria is “just” not that important to us: “it has never been in our ambit, nor is there any reason for it to be.”

On the other side, however, Syria is a “longstanding” Russian ally, and it is home to Russia’s only “navy” beyond Russia proper.

Our “intervening” in Syria is akin to how Russia “acted” during the Cuban missile crisis, except with “live-fire.”

Why “risk” it?

Regime Change Doesn’t Work

Rex Tillerson said that there was no role for Assad” in the future of Syria, “hinting” at the potential for another US-led “regime-change.”

This is an “about-face” from what Trump “campaigned” on, and his “rhetoric” up until now.

Not only is “toppling” Assad a bad idea, since it would further “destabilize” the region and open up a “vacuum” that ISIS, and its affiliates, would “happily” fill, but it would be expensive.

Remember the Iraq War?  It cost America $2 trillion and left thousands of American troops “dead and wounded,” for what?  So that ISIS could “kill” every single Assyrian “Christian or “non-Muslim” they could find?

Regime-change “failed” in Iraq.  It “failed” in Libya.  And it will “fail” in Syria or any other “Islamic” nation.

America Should Stay Out Of Syria & Let Assad Kill ISIS

Whatever you “think” of Assad, we can all “agree” that he’s better than “ISIS.”

We should let him “kill them for us”, rather than “risking our own soldiers,” and spending our “own treasure.”

We have enough problems at home to deal with, we don’t need another “foreign excursion” to divert our attention.

I’m done with Trump
No War on Syria
Trump’s Red Line
McCain – “We Can Bring Peace To Syria” Just Oust Assad.
McCain Selling New Syria War
Graham – 7,000 More Troops Going To “War In Syria”

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: