Tuesday, October 1, 2013

To Bomb or Not to Bomb

What would really happen if America started dropping bombs on Syria? The military strikes shouldn’t occur for very specific reasons: Relationships between potential enemy countries will wear thin, stress will be at an all-time high again, and the economy will either suffer drastically or increase from the productivity of the country to help with this militarily. The arguments between Barack Obama and Putin are not turning out for the better, but seem to be placing more tension between the two old rivaled enemies. These arguments have gotten so tense and dangerous that the UK has opted out of helping the U.S. if a military conflict were to outbreak. During an interview on BBC, British Defense Secretary Phillip Hammond said the votes were 285 deciding for no military action to 272 votes for military action. Even though this was a close win, it has been decided that the UK will involve in no military action against Syria.
After the August twenty-first chemical gas attacks, the U.S. threatened military retaliation against Bashar Assad. The issue was resolved when The Daily News reported that President Obama has assured that the Pact created with Russia for Syria to hand over the chemical weapons doesn’t weaken or affect the United States in any way. This pact was designed to take the all chemical weapons out of Syria and put them into Russia. Even with this vague pact stating that these weapons will not be used, President Barack Obama still has the threat of bombing Syria over Russia’s head.
These bombings just might start another World War in which the old superpowers, Russia and the United States will fight once more over something so little, so insignificant to our way of life in which this war would destroy everything we have ever worked towards. At this rate, another war would help boost the economy because of the response of each country, but the purging of innocent lives and the lives of military personnel would not be worth the time and effort behind it. Another war will not only destroy cultures and ways of life, this would scar the minds of children for years to come. Just like in World War II, there was no real need for it, except the fact that greed and power got in the way. That war was supposed to end all wars, but did it really, or will history repeat itself once more?
Another fight in Syria can ignite a spark that will most likely start another military conflict. After all of the fighting about Weapons of Mass Destruction and terrorism in Afghanistan for 11 years, the Miami Herald states that the casualty rates from Afghanistan come up to around 2,135 deaths and over 19,287 wounded in action. If the situation becomes bad enough, we might have to start sending kids roughly between the ages of eighteen to twenty-five to go fight this battle for us. As a Cadet, this idea scares all of us that at our young age, our childhoods would be robbed, so that way we can go fight a country out in the Middle East over one little decision from Congress or the President. As a whole, we watch very closely at what is going on in the world and how it will eventually affect us.

Where will bombing Syria really get us? There is no definite answer to this question, but another war, another lost country, and more time and lives wasted on a useless country that really means nothing to us other than the chemical weapons that are being used. If the Middle East wants to attack itself and destroy itself from the inside, I say let them do it, because that will save time, money, and despair for the American people that will go out there and fight for this beautiful country. The lives saved from treating this with caution is a whole lot better than just turning Syria into a parking lot.


  1. I have seen this before! I find it ironic that this is your post this week since the Government decided to shut down. I don't think this will be discussed any time soon. Anyways, like I wrote to you in the peer edit paragraph, I think you make an excellent argument. You have so much factual evidence (logos!) in the piece and it is very informative while still trying to persuade. Personally I am not educated enough on the topic to have an opinion, but reading your piece definitely helps!

  2. Deja vu 100%. You do make good points and are very logical. I'm currently reading a book in which one of the chapters focuses on learning from previous economic, military, and political mistakes so I really connected with the part about learning from others.

  3. As I found in your paper, I think your opinion on this kind of topic is a very interesting one, in a good way of course. The thoughts of someone who is interested in serving our country seem to be, from a media standpoint, sort of overlooked. Some would assume that just because you may want to serve that you would be all for going over seas and such, but really you would rather avoid unnecessary conflict. And that's what this is, unnecessary conflict.