Is it just me, or does it seem like the only thing congress can agree on is bombing foreign nations? Somehow republicans and democrats are now both leaning towards intervening in Syria. Rand Paul stands firmly against military intervention since it does not clearly support US goals abroad. Furthermore as I have discussed at length before, the USA has a history of supporting people who will soon be our enemies.
The rebels in Syria are most likely affiliated with al-qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood who are not US friendly groups. The US supported al-qaeda affiliates before when Russia invaded Afghanistan, America later fought those same people we supplied with weapons. But this time if America wants to intervene in Syria, we have the very real risk of World War III being started, or at least another Vietnam. Russia and China have suggested they would support Syria if America gets involved, and Iran is with them.
But now we have our Nobel Peace Prize winning President suggesting that the USA bomb Syria, because Syria bombed Syria. Eric Cantor and John Boehner are either pushovers, or they think they would lose votes from the base if they didn’t seem tough on national security issues. But in reality attacking Syria will put the US at much more risk than leaving the regional battle alone. What is America going to contribute to the middle east turf wars that it has not already? Has US intervention in the past helped the situation? I cannot see any net positives which have come from our military operations in middle east countries.
Nation building is a bankrupting endeavor which inevitably creates more enemies than it destroys. If the USA is serious about being safe, we will drastically pull back our troops from most of the world, and commit to protecting the Mexican border which currently allows regular access to the US by drug cartels. But somehow politicians convince us that we need to do something about civil wars across the world, and all that can come of it is new enemies, dead American soldiers, and more debt.