Why is US GOV Considering Aid to Syrian Rebels?
Other than knowing Syria is embroiled in a civil war I’m really late to the party of knowing the details of what’s been going on in Syria. (Honestly, after faithfully following Iraq since 2003, Iran's (and Korea’s) Nuke scenarios, Hezbollah vs Israel in 2006, Egypt revolting in Jan 11, everything Afghanistan, Arab Spring, and Libya falling I’m exhausted with Middle East unrest.) This morning I read the Washington Post’s front page space devoted to Kerry’s negotiations/considerations for (soft-)aid to the Syrian rebels. Why (article didn’t say)? Unless a conflict directly involves Israel, it seems we get involved in every Middle East conflict that sustains itself. Our history of excuses, all unfurled for Iraq, have included A) We’re taking the fight to the terrorists, B) There is a Nuclear weapons facility, C) They have Al Q connections, and D) (off the record) The oil passing through the strait of Hormuz needs protection. None of A, B, or D deem remotely applicable, and as for C) aren’t the rebels who’d be getting the aid mildly associated with Al Q?
One more thing – I was surprised to see that 70,000 Syrians have perished in the civil war, to mostly include the unarmed innocents. I remember McCain attempting to raise up congressional support last year (when the number of deaths was less than 10,000) to no avail, but isn’t this aid too little too late? And doubly, it’s only soft-aid – meaning food, not weapons. Whether it’s right or not (whenever we know why) isn't US support is too late and lukewarm?
|
Linear Mode
