7 Reasons Why America Should Not Attack Syria

Although hawkish neocons like Ben Shapiro are rejoicing that President Trump launched 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syrian airstrip, those on the new right are not so enthusiastic.

For example, Paul Joseph Watson has come out strongly against Trump’s decision, expressing his concerns over the safety of a nearby Christian village, that is currently being protected from “moderate rebels” by Assad’s air-superiority.

Ann Coulter has likewise pointed out that previous interventions in the Middle East have been disasters—have we already forgotten about Iraq and Libya? What about Afghanistan? Egypt?

"What follows Assad? What followed Saddam? Gaddafi? 15 yrs, 6k lost heroes 500k massacred Chrstns $5 Trill–for what?https://t.co/zQfrEWFYpS — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) April 7, 2017

In fact, one of the reasons Trump won the election was because he decried the interventionist policies of the Bush and Obama regimes.

Recall when he tweeted this:

What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 29, 2013

I agree. What will we get?

Nothing.

Let’s be honest: the attack was a total waste of money, and frankly, we’re fighting the wrong guys.

As bad as Assad is, he’s a hell of a lot better than his “replacements”.

Here’s why firing Tomahawk cruise missiles into Syria was, and is, a bad idea:

1. Attacking Syria Is A Waste Of Money: Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Cost $1 Million A Shot, Asphalt Is Cheap

Tomahawk cruise missiles cost $1 million a piece.

Not only that, but the newer models that will replace them cost up to $1.5 million per unit.

This means that we wasted $60-90 million on the attack—not including the associated costs, like deploying warships in the Mediterranean.

And what did we use them to break? Tarmac.

Here’s the deal: Syria is war-zone, and Assad’s government is essentially a police state. Replacing a runway will cost Assad next to nothing, assuming he even pays people to fix it—it’s not like Syria has a shortage unemployed people, gravel, or tar, after all.

From an economic standpoint, we should’ve just flushed our money down the toilet, since that’s what we usually do.

And don’t even get me started on the cost (both in blood and treasure) of putting boots on the ground.

Rather than wasting money abroad, we should be spending it at home—there are 23 million Americans who are unemployed, living hand-to-mouth. Rather than bombing the Middle East, let’s put them to work.

2. The Missile Attack Accomplished Nothing

According to the Daily Mail, Syrian jet fighters took off from the allegedly bombed-out runway without issue.

If the goal was deny Assad the tactical advantage of the airbase, then the attack was a failure.

Beyond that, Trump has burned valuable political capital with his supporters, who are divided over his actions.

Many, if not most Americans want an end to America’s involvement abroad (including spending on foreign aid and the UN), and for them, this is a step in the wrong direction.

Let’s focus on rebuilding our own country, rather than destroying another.

3. Bashar al-Assad Is Fighting ISIS & Al-Qaeda For Us

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like Assad, and I don’t think he’s our friend.

But he’s a hell of a lot more reasonable than the “moderate rebels” who want to replace him, who are backed by Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, and the Saudi Arabians.

The below clip is only a minute long watch it. In it, Assad shares his thoughts on the European migrant crisis.

Now compare that to this clip of ISIS doing ISIS things (like beheading Christians and smashing Roman artifacts):

Who do you think is more reasonable? Who do you think should govern Syria?

Assad.

As you can see in the below map, Assad’s regime is directly in conflict with ISIS over major swaths of territory—he’s killing them for us.

Why are we interfering? Let them fight.

And if we are to get involved, we should at least target ISIS—Assad isn’t our enemy, and neither is Russia. We all want ISIS gone, so let’s team up and get it done.

4. More War Means More Refugees, And More Suffering

In his Reflections on the Revolution in France, Edmund Burke (the father of classical conservatism) noted that stability was generally preferable to revolution, even if stability meant enduring a sub-optimal situation.

He’s right.

Life under the Assad regime wasn’t great. But it was certainly tolerable.

In fact, before the civil war, Syrians enjoyed higher standards of living than did their Muslim cousins in Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, or Iraq—Syria was relatively well-off.

Since Syria disintegrated, millions of Syrians have lost everything, and the chaos is spreading throughout the Middle East and Europe.

The entire region is destabilized, which is causing hoards of migrants to flood into Europe.

And yes, I realize that the majority of migrants aren’t from Syria, but the fact is that after Syria fell (likewise with Libya), the dams burst—all of these people wanting to come to Europe now had an open passage and a plausible pretext.

Sweden, for example, is already on its knees, while Germany has been settled by so many migrants that its entire demographic structure has been altered.

If we want to solve the migrant crisis in Europe, we need to stem the flow if migrants from the Islamic world—letting Assad regain control will help do that.

5. Intervening In Syria Could Spark Conflict Between The US & Russia

I do not want war with Russia. Neither do you.

Why? Because Russia is a nuclear superpower that could turn America into glass.

No matter how improbable nuclear war with Russia is, we should nevertheless take caution to avoid situations that could escalate, because the potential consequences are ruinous.

Syria is just not that important to us: it has never been in our ambit, nor is there any reason for it to be.

On the other side, however, Syria is a longstanding Russian ally, and it is home to Russia’s only navy beyond Russia proper.

Our intervening in Syria is akin to how Russia acted during the Cuban missile crisis, except with live-fire.

There’s no point in risking conflict.

And even if you don’t care about Russia, do you really want to be involved in another protracted war in the Middle East? No. We don’t need another Iraq, thanks.

6. Regime Change Failed Before, It Will Fail Again

Rex Tillerson said that there was “no role for Assad” in the future of Syria, hinting at the potential for another US-led regime-change.

This is an about-face from what Trump campaigned on, and his rhetoric up until now.

Not only is toppling Assad a bad idea, since it would destabilize the region and open up a vacuum that ISIS, and its affiliates, would happily fill, but it would be expensive.

Remember the Iraq War? It cost America $2 trillion and left thousands of American troops dead and wounded—for what? So that ISIS could kill every single Assyrian Christian they could find?

Regime-change failed in Iraq. It failed in Libya. And it will fail in Syria.

We shouldn’t let ourselves be entangled in another, pointless, foreign war.

7. Assad Protects His Christian Allies: If He Falls, They Die

Many don’t know this, but Syria’s Christian population is allied with Assad against the radical Islamic rebel forces—the strongest of which are Al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, & the Islamic State.

The fact is this: if Assad falls, Syria’s religious minorities will be massacred, just like the were in Iraq.

Remember what ISIS did to Iraq’s Yazidi & Christian populations?

The men were executed in gruesome fashion, the boys were sold as slaves or forced to fight like Jannisaries, and the girls and woman were used as rape-slaves.

Why would it be any different in Syria?

America Should Not Attack Syria

Whatever you think of Assad, we can all agree that he’s better than ISIS.

We should let him kill them for us, rather than risking our own soldiers, and spending our own treasure.

We have enough problems at home to deal with, we don’t need another foreign excursion to divert our attention.