SYRIA NEEDS SOLUTIONS, NOT CRITICISM

…The negative signs and effects of the war in Syria.

 

Conservative writers need to offer something more than slurs and critiques.

 

It is highly frustrating as a writer to read the confusing articles from conservative writers such as Richard Cohen of the Washington Post, about the mid-east war in Syria.

 

My frustration is that so much of what these conservatives write is very accurate as to what is going wrong in Syria.  But there is never any clear suggestions for offering possible solutions.

 

This has been a long-time issue I have had with many of the Republicans and the far-right conservatives.  They will have all kinds of comments and criticism of a large laundry list of the government’s issues.  But when it comes time for the obvious inputs or solutions that should be presented after using the word “therefore”, all one hears is a bunch of verbal blather or a very long and silent echo.

 

You know, kind of echo when you step into a large empty building that has concrete floors and a metal roof.

 

Here are some clear examples of what I a saying:

 

Mr. Cohen wrote the following diatribe:  “The Russians did invade. They sent war planes, mechanized units and even troops into Syria. They have begun bombing missions, apparently hitting insurgents seeking to topple Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad and not only, as Russian President Vladimir Putin promised, Islamic State units. Putin — surprise! — lied.

 

Obama says the Russians have stepped into a quagmire. I agree. Soon, Russians will be killed on the ground. Maybe then Putin will send more troops to protect the ones already there. In this way, his commitment would escalate. Clearly, though, he is aware of the risks. Just as clearly, he thinks they are worth taking. In other words, he knows what he is doing.”

 

The United States in contrast seems to be at a loss. Obama has called for Assad to go. He hasn’t gone. The United States has poured millions of dollars into training rebels to fight the Islamic State, but not those fighting Assad. It is picking and choosing among rebel groups and has not had much luck. The Pentagon has produced maybe four or five fighters — yes, that’s the correct amount — while some of the others it has trained have gone over to the enemy, taking their equipment with them. The entire enterprise lends itself to parody were it not for the fact that 200,000 lives have been lost in Syria and 4 million people pushed out of the country.”

 

Everything Mr. Cohen has written in this long statement here is true.  But is there even a hint of what should or could have been done in going forward?  As usual, not one word or suggestion was offered.

 

It’s all the classic conservative’s approach.  They bitch and complain just as they all did about Obamacare.  But was there ever a replacement idea for America to have a viable national health care program?  Not one example had, or has since been offered as a viable replacement of the Obamacare/ACA health care program.  They apparently just prefer that the strongest nation in the industrialized world should continue being the only one without national health care.

 

But back to Syria, Mr. Cohen didn’t stop talking there.

 

He also wrote: “Syria is a horror, and a complex one at that. At the onset of its civil war, I was among those who argued for U.S. intervention — arming the rebels, establishing a no-fly zone to suppress Assad’s helicopters. I never wanted to see American troops in the country. One dumb Middle East war a generation is enough for me.

 

Obama did nothing. Syria festered. Obama drew a “red line” around the use of chemical weapons. Assad has since used chlorine gas. Obama did nothing. American credibility crumbled. The United States opened an air war against the Islamic State. It has done some damage, but it would be much more effective if there were spotters on the ground. Obama won’t do that, either. A no-fly zone needs to be established. It is not too late to do something . By doing so little, the United States has allowed others to do so much.”

 

Now in this case, it does appear that Mr. Cohen is offering the options of arming the rebels and having a no-fly zone over Syria with US ground spotters.

 

That sounds pretty good doesn’t it.

 

But first you would have to identify who the real rebels are from everyone else.  So far, as Mr. Cohen has written, those that the US has tried to help have run off with the American made equipment and many have joined the other side.  In addition, those so called “ground spotters” would need platoons of troops to guard them on the ground in Syria.  But that could mean American troops joining the fight on the ground and  Mr. Cohen says that, “one Middle East War is enough for him”.

 

In addition, where were all these ideas when everything had started hitting the fan?  Isn’t hind-sight such an excellent out?

 

But Mr. Cohen continues:  “The president said at the United Nations recently that guns alone will not defeat the Islamic State. ‘Ideologies are not defeated with guns, they’re defeated by better ideas — a more attractive and compelling vision.’

 

But we already have better ideas. How’s not making women into sex slaves? How’s not decapitating foreign hostages? How’s not massacring prisoners of war? How’s not destroying ancient religious sites? These are not bad ideas and they have been around and tested for quite some time. In fact, some originated in the region. How’s the Golden Rule for a better idea?

 

Obama talks mush. The Islamic State needs to be fought. It is a fascist movement whose clarity of purpose attracts the lost and bewildered. Upward of 20,000 of them have flocked to Syria and Iraq from all over the world. They know our better ideas. They have rejected them in favor of violence. We need to kill them. There is no other way.”

 

So, if you follow Mr. Cohen’s logic, “one Middle East War is enough”, but according to him, “We need to kill them. There is no other way.”   Just how is anyone expected to achieve Mr. Cohen’s so-called results without starting another  war?

 

Mr. Cohen ends his article by writing the following: “The war that Obama has avoided in Syria has cost many lives. The war he has avoided has swamped Europe with migrants. The war he has avoided has made a muddle of U.S. policy, provided an opening for the Russians, exhibited American irresoluteness and caused much pain.”

 

As I said, I am not arguing with the validity of any of the statements of fact by Mr. Cohen.

 

But just what is Mr. Cohen suggesting as a solution?

 

One war is enough, but we need to kill them, there’s no other way….?  Or is it, we do need to go to war because “The war that Obama has avoided in Syria has cost many lives. The war he has avoided has swamped Europe with migrants.”

 

Just exactly what is Mr. Cohen suggesting?  One war was enough, but we need to go to war anyway?

 

As confusing as it is in listening to the conservatives, it’s no wonder the Republican Party is in disarray and continues to shrink. 

 

In no way do I suggest that the president’s philosophy about Syria has been correct.  But I will be the first to say that today’s situation in the middle east mainly came about by the wrong decision by the Bush/Cheney bunch to invade Iraq.  That move by the United States was like a snowball rolling downhill as the middle east began unraveling.

 

Because of Iraq, the US needs to take responsibility for a lot of what has occurred in the Middle East and yes we may need to again put boots on the ground if diplomacy continues to fail.  Putin had to get involved because his buddy Assad was losing Syria to the Islamic State, not to the Syrian rebels.  Unfortunately, the Syrian and Iraqi civilians have been caught in the middle.  Ergo, all the migrants fleeing the area.

 

I don’t have the necessary answers, but I’m also not blaming the president as he has been trying to fix something broken here that he inherited from the previous administration.  And the president is trying to avoid another war for the American people and the US military.

 

Comments like those from Mr. Cohen and other conservatives are not appropriate and they do not help the situation, nor do they offer any viable solutions..

 

Copyright G.Ater  2015