Tuesday, September 3, 2013
US IS GETTING INVOLVED IN ANOTHER CIVIL WAR----WHY?
Here we are again preparing to enter into a Civil War of another country even amidst great promises that our involvement will be short lived since we don’t intend to really do anything more than “show that guy” that he can’t get away with gassing his own people.
It matters little evidently that he has killed over 100, 000 of his own people but now he used a WMD, gas, and that is an unacceptable way to kill . Claims and passions run high that a few hundred of these 1400 people killed by gas were children. How many children are included in the 100, 000 plus already killed and not one finger has been lifted to do anything about these children or these citizens of Syria. Using children being gassed as a reason for going to war is disingenuous at best but it plays well among some.
Somehow lobbing a few hundred missiles into Syria has been translated into stopping Assad and the Syrian government from doing anything like this again and will send a message to Iran, Russia and China that use of such weapons (WMD’s) will not be tolerated. Who are they trying to convince? Certainly it will have little to no effect on Syria and certainly none on Iran with Russia and Chinese backing.
We are setting ourselves up for another intervention in a place where we don’t belong. We have evidently learned little from history.
In 1949/50 there was another Civil War beginning in a part of the world where the US had just ended a World War, Asia and the Pacific. The situation was similar and the suggestion as to how it would be handled was even more similar. The North Koreans and the South Koreans had been divided by the United Nations at the end of WW 2 with promises of free elections in a five year time period. When trouble began brewing between the two segments of Korea and developed into a Civil War the US was put into a position of “doing something”. Sound familiar?
In PresidentTruman's mind, this aggression, if left unchecked, would start a chain reaction that would destroy the United Nations and give the go ahead to further Communist aggression elsewhere. Korea was where a stand had to be made; the difficult part was how.
The similarity’s are astounding if one just changes Communist aggression with terrorism.
In the case of Korea the UN Security Council approved the use of force to help the South Koreans and the U.S. immediately begin using air and naval forces in the area to that end. The Administration still refrained from committing on the ground because some advisers believed the North Koreans could be stopped by air and naval power alone.
This administration has made the same suggestions, but how long did it last in Korea and how long will it last in this situation?
They plan to go in with no real plan on winning as a goal or with no actual goal other than to fire a few missiles and hope that this will deter Assad , Iran, Russia, China and other terrorist states.
This was soon followed in 1963 with another civil war in a place called Viet Nam and once again the US got involved with no clear plan on how to win or if winning was the real goal or plan of what would occur should victory occur. We left that war with a divided nation here at home and wounds that to this day that have not healed.
Are we willing to risk placing this country into the midst of another Civil War with out a plan to bring it to an end or a plan on what will happen regardless the outcome?
The answer is a resounding no to each of these questions and without these answers is the very reason that the United States should not become involved until these questions have a clear and concise answers. These questions have to be clearly answered by this President to the American people, not the Secretary of State, not a spokesman, not a General but the President himself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
__Korea cannot be used as an example of the present situation in Syria. Following the defeat of Japan, which had occupied Korea for 35 years, the United States and the Soviet Union mutually agreed to administer the peninsula in a joint temporary trusteeship, in order that the Koreans could get back on their feet, hold free elections and decide for themselves, the government they wanted. Instead, the Soviets imposed a communist government in the north and refused to allow for elections –just the posture that we would later take in South Vietnam. Korea was divided into American and Soviet zones along the 38TH parallel and an uneasy truce existed until June 1950, when troops from the North invaded the South without warning. The United States sought and received authorization from the Security Council, under the U.N. Participation Act of 1945. President Truman acted responsibly to repel the Communist aggression and violation of the U.N. Charter, just as he would later do with the Berlin airlift, in preventing the Soviet Union from abrogating the Four Powers Agreement on the administration of Berlin, following W.W. II. And President Truman acted responsibly in containing Communism, by allowing the situation in Korea to stalemate. Once the fortunes of war swung back to the Allies, MacArthur was warned not to extend allied advance to the Yalu River. Instead, he assured the President and the Joint Chiefs of Staff that the Chinese would not enter the war. Indeed, the troops would be “home by Christmas”. We very nearly got pushed off the peninsula by that miscalculation and while the brilliant tactician side of the General was evident in the Inchon Landing, as a political prognosticator, he was a bust. The Chinese army could not be defeated by conventional means and they were not about to stand by idly while U.S. forces looked over their border with Korea. Only a nuclear response could have driven them back –with disastrous long-range ramifications –and the U.S. had expended its three-bomb inventory with the last bomb dropped on Nagasaki.
__Syria bears no resemblance in any regard to the Korean situation. Neither is there any vital interest of the United States at stake. Syria is an important client state of Russia. They have built a base in the north. The Assad regime appears to be gaining the upper hand, which calls into question whether it was Assad or the rebels that got their hands on Sarin gas and used it. The rebels would have much to gain from a black flag operation, thinking the U.S. would enter the conflict; the Assad regime, nothing. Morerover, the U.N. inspectors have not issued their report on the laboratory samples brought back to Europe for analysis and the Security Council has voted NOT to authorize force at this time in Syria. President Obama is therefore totally dependent on Congressional authority to respond militarily. It is not our intent to cause the removal of Assad, we have been advised. Tomahawk missiles can do no significant damage, as they cannot be targeted to moving objectives and they dare not strike either gas storage areas or the naval base with Russians located there. The most important reason for entering the Syrian conflict -to remove the estimated 1,000+ tons of poison gas, cannot be accomplished without introducing thousands of troops to seize the stores and disable their facilities for manufacturing Sarin. To do so, would indeed open a Pandora’s box to the onset of World War III. A red line HAS been crossed with the introduction of Sarin gas by whichever party or parties did so, but this is a violation of the Geneva Convention and the principal reason for which the U.N. was established –whether or not they act. Syria is NOT a security threat to the United States; this is not our fight.
------------------------------
DONN M SEARLE
Houston, Texas
amen to this!..but Hussein wont stop till he enables the MB all over the world..what a horror. Keep up the good fight:)
I wrote my two senators and Congressman over Syria. Nothing good there. I'm glad we ducked it.
Post a Comment