There is a lot of debate in this state and across the rest of the nation over whether the U.S. should get involved in Syria’s civil war. Some members of Congress want the country to proceed full speed ahead with sabers out, while others want to tread carefully in the affairs of another Arab nation.
Others like Rep. Jack Kingston, R-1, are not sure the U.S. even belongs there. He cites the sentiments of constituents, like a true congressman is supposed to do.
Americans everywhere have mixed emotions here. Many wonder why the U.S. — and not the United Nations — is the one expressing concern about the welfare of the men, women and children in a war where one side is quick to use chemical weapons. It should be the United Nations, the global force for good, that is asking questions and considering sending in peace-keeping troops.
The United States, its military personnel, is still engaged with the enemy in Afghanistan, while its accomplishments in Iraq appear to be slowly but surely unraveling.
Knowing all of this, the nation’s leadership must ask itself what good U.S. troops might accomplish in Syria.
The nation can ill-afford to risk the lives of more troops in a war that promises to go nowhere. Then there’s the actual cost in dollars and cents. Right now, the federal government is cutting everything, including meals for the elderly, to reduce the deficit. Do we really need to be firing off million-dollar rockets in a war that only means something to the sides fighting it?
If this is an action necessary to the defense of our nation, then the U.S. has very little choice in what it must do. If, on the other hand, this would be a punitive countermeasure aimed at the side using chemical weapons, then no - we don’t belong there.
The United Nations does, however, regardless of what excuse it offers to stay clear of what certainly is a no-win, tangled mess to all outsiders.