Friedersdorf: Instead of strikes, how about helping Syrian refugees?

[cali]

From his article "A Brief Argument Against War In Syria":

<snip>

The U.S. government could spend millions helping Syrian refugees. It could help pay for tsunami-warning systems across the Indian Ocean, or spend more funding the development of a malaria vaccine, or stop dumping agricultural commodities on poor countries in a way that stunts their economic development. There is no shortage of humanitarian suffering for us to address, if that's how we want to spend our money, and I am fine with spending more of it helping people.

But injecting bombs and cruise missiles into a civil war probably isn't the most cost effective way to help people. It is certainly the sort of humanitarian assistance most likely to make us bitter enemies, which inevitably happens when you pick a side and start killing some of the people on it.

Intervening in Syria could have catastrophic consequences for America and for the region. Non-intervention would pose no threat to us, and wouldn't preclude us from alleviating suffering elsewhere on a huge scale (and with no risk of accidentally killing innocent civilians in the process).

Hawks are most interested in humanitarian causes that can be carried out by force. There is no reason the rest of us should share their world view, given how many times it has resulted in needless slaughter on a massive scale. It's impossible to know for certain what war would bring. That is the strongest case against going to war.

<snip>

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/a-brief-argument-against-war-in-syria/279078/

[The Straight Story]

1. While I agree we should certainly be helping

This is one area where the international community should already be leading - again, not saying we cannot help, but when it comes to aid most countries are on equal footing in their ability to assist in some manner (when it comes to military the US has the most power and ability so we would more naturally lead and be more involved in those cases).

Iran and Jordan has been assisting in that area already but the amount of refugees continues to grow and strain their abilities (housing, water, food, etc). They are also streaming into Iraq who has asked the US for military aid to deal with extremists coming in.

[cali]

2. I heartily disagree with that premise

I suggest reading this:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/before-you-conclude-that-precision-bombing-makes-sense-with-syria/279086/

and this:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/27/syria-in-the-crosshair/

Then get back to me.

[The Straight Story]

3. And UN is sending to the refugees in iraq:

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45712&Cr=&Cr1=

[The Straight Story]

5. Those are discussions about whether or not we should act in a military way at all

Now what the article says about aid over bombs - I think we can all agree on that, but there is only so much aid that can help when people are being gassed and attacked in an ongoing war.

People, countries, are helping the refugees already. The introduction of chemical weapons is what has made this a more volatile situation especially considering our ally south of the Syrian border - who we know would act without any second thought should such a weapon cross their borders and would do a helluva lot more destruction than we would.

If we just let this go, and one of the factions in Syria gets a hold of those weapons and uses them in Israel then there will be a helluva lot more death and destruction unleashed - and some fear that this is where it is headed (Israel has already called up the reservists and gas masks are flying off the shelves there).

[CanonRay]

4. How will defense contractors make any money on that?

C'mon...get with the program already.