Must the USA involve themselves in every conflict?
Posted on June 15th, 2013

Michelle Alexander

It has been reported this week that the USA is close to approving lethal aid to Syrian rebels. They are also weighing the feasibility of a “less likely move” to lend US airpower to enforce a no-fly zone. Already caught in the quagmires that are Iraq and Afghanistan, they are contemplating moves that would get them involved in another conflict, a conflict that has so far claimed the lives of 80,000 Syrians.

Money and investments from foreign countries are what’s funding America’s wars. The bulk of this is from China, followed by Japan.  China is said to have invested just under $2 trillion, most of it buying US treasury bonds. However, now that the USA is accruing trillions of more dollars of debt, the investments made by China in the USA are bound to get affected. With that in mind, China is sure to be looking for other avenues in other countries to place their money. America’s days of unlimited borrowing are almost over.

The USA seems desperate to ensure foreign nations get access to democracy and freedom, yet they seem to have difficulty in providing assistance and ensuring the safety of American citizens, especially within the USA itself. One only has to log on to the internet or watch the news to learn of the latest shooting or weather disaster.

American soldiers are sent on multiple tours of duty. Multiple tours can cause quite a psychological strain, especially if those involved are in active combat duty. Many can handle the pressure. Some lose control and we will hear of incidents like the case of Staff Sgt. Robert Bales, who was charged with killing 16 Afghan civilians during night-time raids on two villages last year. Most of the victims were women and children, and some of the bodies were burned. If the USA ends up sending more troops into Syria, would we see more Robert Bales?

While there are many allegations laid at Assad’s door, the Syrian rebels aren’t innocent of wrong-doing. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights says that at least 60 people were killed by rebel forces, when they attacked a Shiite village. This massacre was said to include old people and children.  The United Nations has repeatedly warned that both sides are guilty of war crimes. From executions of armed prisoners to retaliatory attacks on villages that protect the opposition, no segment of Syrian society has been spared from the worst of the fighting. And as the war has dragged on, old sectarian rivalries have re-emerged, which sounds rather familiar considering what is happening Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc. One can logically assume that Iran’s turn may come soon.

Furthermore, where are nations like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in all of this? What are their roles in resolving issues concerning their neighbouring countries?

The US government, particularly through its military operations and involvement in regime changes from My Lai to No Gun Ri, to Iraq and Afghanistan, is racking up quite the body count. The question to ask is this, with the US economy in the doldrums and its days as a Super Power coming to an end, is this just an attempt by a country trying to stay relevant in the eyes of the world.

4 Responses to “Must the USA involve themselves in every conflict?”

  1. Lorenzo Says:

    No Syria too.

    I hope the Russians stand their ground.

  2. Lorenzo Says:

    A more sensible person has replaced Ah-mad-in-a-jacket as Iran’s president.

    A lesson to DICTATORSHIP Saudi to go democratic.

  3. AnuD Says:

    Russians have talked openly against No fly zone. In Syria, american needs will not work, but, it may leads to a wide spread war.

  4. michelly200 Says:

    @ Lorenzo
    The Saudi Royal Family may never allow that to happen. In summary:-

    1. If they become a democracy they may go the same way as Libya/Syria/Egypt/Libya et al, with in-fighting and violence being dished out by rival factions. Or they could go the way of Iran, where there is democracy, but the majority of the final decisions rests with the Supreme Leader.

    2. They run the risk of a extremist/fundamentalist party gaining power (which could be viewed as a greater evil by most. Better the known devil than the unknown devil)

    3. If the Royal Family steps down, they risk losing control of the people. They lose control of the people, they lose control of the country. They lose control of the country, they risk losing control of the oil.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

 

 


Copyright © 2018 LankaWeb.com. All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress