HUMANITARIAN WAR: AN OXYMORON

”HUMANITARIAN” INTERVENTION IN SYRIA

Some of our politicians and pundits--many on the right--would have us intervene militarily in Syria. On May 28, 2012, General Martin Dempsey himself, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stepped out of his role as military advisor and into the role of policy maker, by stating that ”there is a military solution to the Syria problem.” or words to that effect. His statement could have been easily interpreted as lobbying for military intervention. His is not a proper role for a man in uniform. He should have kept his ”opinions" to himself.

The motive for military intervention in Syria is often described as "humanitarian". However, the most compelling reason for NOT intervening is humanitarian. Yes the Syrian people are suffering. The regime is brutal, some nine thousand people have died so far in demonstrations and fighting over the last year. Some of it no doubt stirred up by Israel and its supporters who would like to see Assad out of there. Has the USA’s CIA been involved? I suspect so but there is no proof.

But military intervention for ”humanitarian” purposes is simply unsupportable. The phrase ”humanitarian war” is an oxymoron. Think of our recent debacle in Iraq where our war efforts to unseat another dictator caused somewhere between 200,000 to 600,000 civilians to lose their lives either directly or indirectly from our military action, in addition it created four million refugees. Would that satisfy the ”humanitarians” in our midsts? That is analogous to having a surgeon amputate a man’s leg to cure his foot fungus.

Aside from the inconsistency and stupidity of a ”humanitarian” intervention, there is another even more basic reason--our economy.

Agreed Syria’s dictator Assad is a bad man. His support is questionable. He and his regime have been putting down a violent rebellion with what appears, from this perspective, as excessive force.

But this is a new time and we are faced with a new economic reality. The USA is no longer in the financial position to throw its weight around just to alter the internal affairs of other nations. Particularly when the out-come of such intervention is so cloudy and uncertain. Even General Demsey agrees to that.

But let’s look more closely at the new economic reality.

Who would pay for a military--"boots on the ground"--type intervention? For that is the only ”solution” possible.

In our nation which annually takes in about $3 trillion dollars but spends nearly $4 trillion dollars (2012), then wrings its collective Congressional hands about borrowing the one trillion dollars it needs to make up its deficit gap. That amount, each year is added to the growing national debt. (That debt is now at $15 trillion dollars which is just a bit over 100% of our GDP, or about the level of some economically shaky nations in Europe.) Furthermore, our Congress votes consistently against any tax increases for the well-heeled, and plans to cut spending by $1.1 trillion over the next ten budget years. This means that any further expenditures for military adventures can not be borrowed (from the Chinese) as they have in the past, but must come from austerity measures ----under our present system that means it is be taken out of the hide of the already beat-upon middle class.

Today, instead of phony "humanitarian wars" in distant foreign lands, we need true humanitarian relief here in the US, where hundreds of thousands of teachers, firemen, policemen and other municipal workers remain out of work. They are among the 13 million or more unemployed. Here at home, health care, social services, and education are in tatters, are underfunded, or are planned to be cut. The nation's general infrastructure, its roads, bridges, electrical grid, it energy supply, broadband access, etc., etc. are either antiquated or in need of updating to meet requirements of a modern nation. All of these needs go unattended as the nation struggles to rise out of the mire of two unnecessary wars, and the 2007 Great Recession, a tragedy resulting from lax government oversight, unwarrented deregulation of the banking industry, and Wall Street greed.

So, with all these problems where will the money come from to pay for any new military adventures in Syria proposed by the Republicans?

Perhaps those Republicans who beat the drums of war and who insist on talking austerity out of one side of their mouth (when it involves domestic and social spending), and press for low taxes for the wealthy out of the other side , would reach out to their well-heeled clients to fund their ”humanitarian" wars. Let us see how much the "one percenters" are willing to part with for a Syria intervention.

Humanitarian projects should begin at home.

Get the picture?

rjk