As both Iraq and Afghanistan meltdown after spending $4 trillion and losing thousands of lives, the Obama Administration wants to pour $500 million into training and equipping the Syrian rebels. Ignore the fact that the Syrian rebels have been accused of human rights violations and atrocities (as has the regime). The government insists that U.S. weapons and money will go to the “right” forces — just ignore all those pictures of ISIS rebels driving around with U.S. equipment in Iraq.
President Obama wants $500 million from Congress to help “train and equip appropriately vetted elements of the moderate Syrian armed opposition.” It is another investment after bad returns on the $4 trillion in prior wars in this area. It is like watching a bad gambler at Vegas screaming that the next hand will pay off.
My primary concern is that we are still cutting basic environmental, scientific, and educational programs due to lack of state and federal funding. In Fairfax county (where my kids go to public school), the county has ordered a disastrous series of cuts of hundreds of positions, teacher raises (despite one of the lowest salary levels in the area), and a further increase in class size. My kids already go to school with an absurd 30 plus kids in a single class with a single teacher. All of this for the need of a fraction of what Congress will pour into Syria with little thought. Obviously, the cuts will hurt Fairfax in the long run which has always drawn families to the area due to its schools. I heard a Maryland official on the radio celebrating the cuts in Fairfax as promising a exodus to Maryland which continues to put a higher priority on education. The greater concern however is that, while other countries are increasing their investment in training students for the modern workforce, the U.S. is continuing to fall in the rankings in education. We are frittering away our future by funding wars rather than education and science needed to keep us competitive in the world market.
It is all perfectly otherworldly as these requests are treated an done deals. Half a billion for rebels seems a no brainer but a fraction of that for schools or science or the environment is viewed as excessive and highly problematic.
Source: CNN
Our government does not profit from war. We do not seize the loser’s treasure and resources to pay for the war. Instead, as Professor Turley pointed out, we pour vast sums of money into wars.
The companies that produce munitions, gear, etc would profit as demand increased. But that’s about it.
Karen – did someone forget about the Treaty of Versailles?
If the past is any indicator of the future, here is how this will play out:
We will train and arm Syrian rebels, because we face a common enemy, just as we trained Bin Laden’s moujahadeen against the Soviet Union. Then those extremists will turn right around and use our training and our weapons to further extremism. If we do this, hopefully we will ensure that we do not give top of the line weapons.
I think we spend too much money abroad for not enough return.
Nick- All I know about the Kurds is everywhere they live rules keep trying to wipe them out. And they have wonderful music and dancing.
http://selenasol.com/selena/struggle/kurds.html
Do you Obama voters still have your I’m stupid stickers on your bumpers?
Arm no one, train no one, except out own military. Stay out of other countries’ civil wars. War profiteering is wrong no matter what President does it. Being influenced by war mongers is a terrible mistake.
At this point, I think the discussion is about what is the best worst choice.
Should read above–a wealth transfer from the very poorest to the rich!
There are two striking patterns: 1. war, to include well armed combat advisors and weapons sales, is always a done deal. No discussion. The money is found and it’s on.
This is one way that the most wealthy individuals in the world make their money from US taxpaers. It is a wealth transfer from the rich to the poor. Arms sales make money for war contractors, banks and various unsavory “friends” of the USG.
2. Obama seems unwilling to consider diplomacy. He is a one trick pony. His answer to every crisis is war and arms sales. I believe this is because he works for the financial and contracting companies, but whatever the reason, he is one to always choose war.
In fact there is a regional group trying to get a diplomatic solution. Instead of undermining this group (and as long as the money fairy is around anyway), why not spend money towards helping that group succeed?
Every empire has foundered on the pursuit of constant war. As citizens we need to choose a different path than that chosen by our “leaders”. They seem to be lost souls, indifferent to the cries of torture, cruelty and death which they cause around the world. Since they are indifferent, we need to redouble our own efforts to change the course of our nation through peaceful means.
How about we spend a half billion on training displaced workers here in our own country. But on the other hand, jamie dimon says the country has never been in better shape. Silly me….
Nick – I agree with you. Arm and train the Kurds. That will keep at least three countries in turmoil.
The W direction seems to be the new “you are here” map of foreign policy.
Some people like the stench of napalm burned human flesh.
The only group in the Middle East we should be helping are the Kurds. Let the rest kill themselves, they seem to really get into it. Makes for less shoe and underwear bombers.
While I think that such a sum is way out of line, I would not object to giving these “good” guys small arms to defend themselves and their position. It is hard to know how these guys are really good and in our interests. Given the fact that the reason ISIS has left Syria because Assad is successfully kicking them out, we should let Assad finish the job and let him kill these nuts, not assisting them. Assad may be a nasty guy,but given the region, nice guys finish DEAD. So which is worse? Assad or ISIS? I think the answer is obvious.
The first thing the CIA does after it has creates dissident fervor is to arm the rebels. Why do they do this ? Because it works. The antithesis is also true when a country is occupied the first thing the occupying force does is disarm the citizens. We are being occupied by our own government and militarized police force.
Another executive order is coming. Now where could he get the $500 million from? I’ve seen those “now you see it, now do don’t” magic tricks before. One more question.
Are these rebels nice, or will they stab you in the back when the time is ripe? Like JT said, “It’s like watching a bad gambler at Vegas”….Add, drunk bad gambler!
JT wrote “Ignore the fact that the Syrian rebels have been accused of human rights violations and atrocities”
I’m sure you know this, but there are three groups fighting in Syria (with many subgroups in each): Assad government, Islamic nuts, and quasi-democratic rebels. Most, but not all, of the atrocities were committed by the first two groups. But as you said, it is difficult to arm one group without it assisting another.
“while other countries are increasing their investment in training students for the modern workforce, the U.S. is continuing to fall in the rankings in education”
But, but, but, you libertarians constantly call for the elimination of government which would naturally result in school districts returning to the one-room teaching style seen here in the 1700s and 1800s!
And there have been plenty of studies showing that students are not really that stupid. They see that jobs are being outsourced. They see that hundreds of thousands of H-1B visas are used to replace American technical workers with Indians (the immigration “reform” bill S.744 makes this even worse). And they are voting with their feet to business, medicine, and other non-techy fields.
Not to mention our national obsession with texting, sexting, Facebook, and other pointless endeavors.
Unfettered capitalism has a price.
So we can arm and train their citizens, but for U.S. citizens remove the guns? This Whitehouse needs to be removed, NOW!
The decision to send $500MM is not based on a practical plan – it is based on the political need to be seen “doing something”.
After all, what is $500MM compared to the president’s image?
There are so many concerns relating to the plundering of our country and its people for the alleged benefit for people in foreign lands that it would take a book. One big one is how dose one vet the Syrian rebels? One leader ate the heart of his enemy after he killed him and cut it out. The others have overrun a good part of Iraq, ISIS. It is going to impossible to find any “good guys” in that mess. But if Mr. Obama is dying to give these lunatics some money why not take it from the $1.5 billion our government is giving to Saudi Arabia to “reform” its justice system. That’s chump change for the House of Saud. They won’t even miss it and since their Minister of Justice believes their justice system is prefect why do they need 1.5 billion. But then isn’t Saudi Arabia and its desire to topple that infidel ASSAD why we are getting involved in Syria in the first place. The US seems ever wedded to the role of being Saudi Arabia’s servant even though the Saudis have been funding terrorists for decades and decades and the people on the planes of 9/11 were Saudis.
President Obama should take care of our people first but then I won’t hold my breath.
The administration does not want to lose face by having Baghdad fall to ISIS and losing face from offering support directly to Iraq. The whole affair has become melted down, ordinary Americans are paying the price and the political class is benefiting financially.
Who are we going to borrow the money from????????