Middle-Eastern countries would be better off if the United States bombed them once a year

growlingsea (25)in #politics • 7 years ago (edited)

They would be even better off if we left them alone entirely!

President Trump recently ordered air strikes on three Syrian targets in response to Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons on civilians. Almost exactly one year ago (on April 6, 2017) the US attacked a Syrian air base for the same reason.

I strongly oppose these specific military actions, but they pale in comparison to the death and destruction we have wrought in the middle east over the past several decades.

If we had only carried out these kinds of precision strikes once a year, people living in countries around the world would have been better off than they are now. Our involvement in the war on terror over the past decade and a half has been... just a moment while I channel my inner Trump... a complete disaster! SAD!

The Human Impact

Are people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, etc... better off because of our involvement? I personally don't think so.

After more than a decade and a half of waging war against terrorism around the world an estimated 370,000 people have died due to direct war violence, and another 800,000 more due to indirect effects of war. It has created a refugee crisis of more than 10 million people. These figures cannot begin to capture the impact on the quality of the lives of the people living in war torn areas.

forced-to-grow-up-too-soon-in-lebanon-mahmoud_11114796016_o.jpg

Compare this with the April 2017 strike on the Syrian airbase that killed an estimated 15 people. It's too early to find estimates for the strikes launched a few days ago, but so far no civilian casualties have been reported.

The Financial Impact

I cannot begin to estimate the economic impact on the people who live in the countries where we unleash our military. My own personal concerns about being able to pay tuition, find a job, buy a house, or save for retirement seem trivial compared to the conditions they face trying to make ends meet in areas ravaged by war.

The estimated cost to the United States for the wars since 2001 is around $5.6 trillion dollars. With 138 million taxpayers in the United States, it has cost each of us about $40,000 dollars! That's enough for four years of in-state tuition at your average public university. For every US taxpayer! And we wonder why we can't have nice things.

Compare these costs with the April 2017 and April 2018 strikes. Figures are hard to find, but I've seen reports of about $240 million for this last strike. I'd put a rough estimate for both strikes at about $500 million. That's about $3.62 for every US taxpayer, or the cost of one Chai Tea Latte at Starbucks. If my estimate is way off, maybe it's the cost of two of them.

Have We Benefited?

So what have we gained for spending an equivalent of four years of tuition for every US taxpayer? Are Americans safer? Are terror groups defeated? Is democracy flourishing?

Hardly. The countries that the United States have attacked experienced more terror attacks each year than those we didn't. Before 9/11, 57 Americans were killed each year on average. After 9/11 that average is 65.

Tensions with Russia are on the rise.

The leaders we have elected either have no clue what they're doing, or they want the way things are right now to be the new normal.

Illegal and Immoral

Congress has abdicated their responsibility to debate and authorize war, a power granted exclusively to them in Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution. Our government should not be allowed to send soldiers or drop bombs without authorization from Congress.

I believe the process for obtaining a FISA warrant is flawed and ripe for abuse, which poses a threat to our rights under the 4th Amendment.

Wars have been predicated on lies. They said Iraq had Weapon of Mass Destruction. They said Assad used chemicals on his people (maybe he did, but we didn't even wait for the evidence before launching strikes).

What should our involvement be?

Minimum requirements:

Congress should have to debate and vote to authorize military actions. Congress is supposed to represent the will of the people, and the Executive branch is supposed to execute that will. Executive branch should not be making decisions about who we fight or when. Only how.
We should never act unilaterally. If we cannot convince the majority of our allies to participate then our participation is questionable.
No more overthrowing governments, no more nation building. It is unfortunate for the people living under oppressive regimes, but it never works out. Our goal should be stability in the world. We are not the police of the world.
Prefer precision strikes. Our history of putting boots on the ground from the Vietnam War and after has been an utter failure.