Early on the public becomes disinterested in intervention into areas of conflict because we have already had our fill on other wars or conflicts which leave us resentful. However, through the stretch of the globe many events occur everyday, some are so significant we must intervene for either humanitarian purposes or to prevent wide spread conflict to which we may become involved. Where the government fails is when it comes to informing the public of the reasons behind what we hope to accomplish and why. Lack of transparency in the decisions of the administration and its use of military power.
Syria for example, a country which at this time have been in civil war for approximately 29 months, and has left a carnage toll of approximately 100,000 people dead. In recent attacks the government factions lead under Assad has purportedly used chemical weapons. This has been independently verified, but has not officially been verified at the time of this post. Photo's coming out of the country indicate a type of gas less than nerve agent which cause breathing problems, phosgene, cyanide, and the off-gases of sarin and mustard agents all have the same capability, with different side effects to each.
This isn't however about the civil war from a military strategic prospective, we could allow them to kill each other off or see one or the other side eventually win. This matter lays in the use of deadly agents, which at some point in time can be targeting other nations and territories. Such capability may significantly change the scale of conflict within a region and prompt unconventional retaliation from certain nations. This is the concept which is not given to the public at large.
Hezbollah, a primary supporter of the war in Syria has chosen sides with Assad who is a dictator to the country. They are made up of several different factions support Islamic beliefs, and are bent on supporting war altogether no matter where it is. The Hezbollah also opposes the United States and Israel and are frequently acting in concert with terrorist to bomb Israel. Israel returns military action against them and supply points, fueling regional unrest. Another supporter to Assad's regime is Russia, this I believe is an economic relationship, but also a strategic partnership which guarantee certain outcomes in the region weigh in the favor of the Russians and Chinese. Perhaps a control aspect in who boarders their countries, and dependence of that country upon them for their power. Testing bed; the smaller Waring countries can be used as a means to test weapons, munitions and delivery systems on limited bases, hence providing new intelligence to build, update or modify technologies, which benefit only Russia and China.
The U.S. role in stopping weapons of mass destruction; the United States signed on to agreements and conventions to help stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) many years ago. Predominantly this govern the humanitarian aspect of the use of weapons which are indiscriminate and kill without selection, and are persistent over a long period of time. The U.S. has long been the enforcement arm of the UN, where such actions to police dangerous situations up lay upon the military might of the United States with support from other nations. However, recently the shift has been to limit use of or support to the US to conduct these operations as past wars have left better taste in many political leaders mouth. The U.S. has the capability to act alone in operations on small scale or even a global mass conflict, however is limited in terms of its involvement because of the economy which has been disrupted, primarily by mismanagement by government officials.
Question posed should we go to war with Syria? Simple answer is NO. In terms of the definition of war, limited military application subject to specific targets to eliminate a threat, YES. It is our duty to rid WMD from being used both on a humanitarian and strategic stand point. We have some who may argue, what about an exit strategy and this could lead to another Vietnam. The answer is NO. No exit strategy is needed nor do we become involved in another Vietnam, as any directed attacks are merely strategic targets to eliminate WMD and its capability of being delivered. A maintained presents in the area is required however, but not within the boarders of Syria, as we have a number of interest in that region.
END
Syria for example, a country which at this time have been in civil war for approximately 29 months, and has left a carnage toll of approximately 100,000 people dead. In recent attacks the government factions lead under Assad has purportedly used chemical weapons. This has been independently verified, but has not officially been verified at the time of this post. Photo's coming out of the country indicate a type of gas less than nerve agent which cause breathing problems, phosgene, cyanide, and the off-gases of sarin and mustard agents all have the same capability, with different side effects to each.
This isn't however about the civil war from a military strategic prospective, we could allow them to kill each other off or see one or the other side eventually win. This matter lays in the use of deadly agents, which at some point in time can be targeting other nations and territories. Such capability may significantly change the scale of conflict within a region and prompt unconventional retaliation from certain nations. This is the concept which is not given to the public at large.
Hezbollah, a primary supporter of the war in Syria has chosen sides with Assad who is a dictator to the country. They are made up of several different factions support Islamic beliefs, and are bent on supporting war altogether no matter where it is. The Hezbollah also opposes the United States and Israel and are frequently acting in concert with terrorist to bomb Israel. Israel returns military action against them and supply points, fueling regional unrest. Another supporter to Assad's regime is Russia, this I believe is an economic relationship, but also a strategic partnership which guarantee certain outcomes in the region weigh in the favor of the Russians and Chinese. Perhaps a control aspect in who boarders their countries, and dependence of that country upon them for their power. Testing bed; the smaller Waring countries can be used as a means to test weapons, munitions and delivery systems on limited bases, hence providing new intelligence to build, update or modify technologies, which benefit only Russia and China.
The U.S. role in stopping weapons of mass destruction; the United States signed on to agreements and conventions to help stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) many years ago. Predominantly this govern the humanitarian aspect of the use of weapons which are indiscriminate and kill without selection, and are persistent over a long period of time. The U.S. has long been the enforcement arm of the UN, where such actions to police dangerous situations up lay upon the military might of the United States with support from other nations. However, recently the shift has been to limit use of or support to the US to conduct these operations as past wars have left better taste in many political leaders mouth. The U.S. has the capability to act alone in operations on small scale or even a global mass conflict, however is limited in terms of its involvement because of the economy which has been disrupted, primarily by mismanagement by government officials.
Question posed should we go to war with Syria? Simple answer is NO. In terms of the definition of war, limited military application subject to specific targets to eliminate a threat, YES. It is our duty to rid WMD from being used both on a humanitarian and strategic stand point. We have some who may argue, what about an exit strategy and this could lead to another Vietnam. The answer is NO. No exit strategy is needed nor do we become involved in another Vietnam, as any directed attacks are merely strategic targets to eliminate WMD and its capability of being delivered. A maintained presents in the area is required however, but not within the boarders of Syria, as we have a number of interest in that region.
END
Comments
Post a Comment