10 Reasons Not to Bomb Syria

Rachel Maddow at least raised a point nobody else was raising when she said that Congress should  debate a little bit before any American action in Syria. I’m sure Rachel is well intentioned, and it is, of course Congresses  constitutional responsibility to do so, even though they’ve more or less ignored that through the last half dozen or so administrations.  Still, THIS congress.  They’ll be all for taking dramatic, decisive action right up to the point where Obama actually does, then they’ll turn on a dime and say he’s acting like a war mongering dictator, which is pretty much exactly what they did on Libya.  Quite frankly, they are not qualified – intellectually or morally – to even debate the subject.

But, since this totally abominable idea is being debated on facebook and everywhere else, let me add my two cents worth.  Here are 10 reasons why the US should not drop bombs on the ancient and historical city of Damascus, now or ever.

They are not our enemy

First, because the side we would theoretically be helping would probably be just as willing to use chemical weapons if they had them.

Second, because as horrible as chemical weapons are, bombs also kill a lot of people. Killing people to punish somebody else for killing people isn’t cool.

Third, slippery slope. Surgical strikes today, military advisors tomorrow, support troops the day after that and bingo, there we are.

Fourth, because it would make more sense to find out what American manufacturers provided them with the chemical weapons (Dow?) and go after them.

Fifth, while Assad may well be an ass (heck, it’s right there in his name) that’s not our call. Like Saddam Hussein, he actually does have a great deal of support among his own people. He’s lasted this long, and “surgical” air strikes (which are almost never truly surgical) might actually serve to solidify his position.

Sixth, slippery slope again. If we get involved in Syria, how do we justify not getting involved in Egypt, or whichever Middle Eastern state goes nuts next?

Seventh, can’t afford it.

Eighth, while I’m not actually denying that a chemical weapons attack occurred, we can’t be 100% certain that it did. The U.S. government and the U.S. media love war so much that they would certainly be willing to lie to us about it – the U.S.S. Maine, the Lusitania, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident provide historical evidence, not to mention the WMDs in Iraq.

Ninth, while U.S. and British oil companies want us to go in, Russian oil companies want us to stay out. Are we willing to risk our relationship with Russia in order to drop some bombs on Damascus?

Tenth, and final reason, the U.S. military track record over the last 67 years is not great. Even when we win, we lose.

Maybe we should give isolationism a chance for a couple of decades.