Commentary/Evan Smith: Attack Syria only if we’re willing to sacrifice
Monday, September 9, 2013
Commentary by Evan Smith
Tonight, we’ll either hear the President’s arguments for attacking Syria or learn that diplomacy has averted the crisis.
An attack would be aimed at stopping the slaughter of innocent people and the spread of chemical weapons.
It’s a noble objective, but it comes at a time when Americans have lost thousands of lives and billions of dollars on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
If Americans believe an attack is worth doing, we should be willing to sacrifice with a special tax to pay for the action and a draft in case we need a larger military.
If we take military action, it should come with sacrifice. If we aren’t willing to make the sacrifices, we shouldn’t do it.
We fought in Iraq and Afghanistan with no financial sacrifice and with the fighting sacrifice falling only on a few. If we fight this time, we should be willing to sacrifice.
Posts
3 comments:
Syria should have received an ultimatum from the US in 2001, along with the other state sponsors of terrorism: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Cuba, North Korea and Sudan. Instead the US has battled a faceless non-entity, "terrorism," for a dozen years.
Hmmm, so when will the president stop the slaughter of innocent people in Chicago and the spread of chemical weapons both the US and the UK own (which the UK willingly sold to Assad)?
It's a fine to throw stones provided you don't live in a glass house yourself.
Our national debt swelled in part – and still does – due to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, here we were (are) teetering on charging yet another military adventure on the nation’s credit card. Instead, any military action that exceeds 90 days should require a new payroll tax. This requirement would make the president and legislators think twice before plunging into another war.
Post a Comment