Another Middle Eastern country, more shady “evidence” and another administration desperately trying to gain support for yet another military intervention.

Here we go again.

Americans are being told that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on Aug. 21, and we must strike.

To understand why attacking Syria should be vehemently opposed by every American, you must first understand exactly what is going on there.

As has been widely reported, the biggest and strongest of the groups fighting Assad are al Qaeda-affiliated Islamic extremists.

On Friday, Bloomberg reported: “radical Sunni Islamists are emerging as the prevalent force seeking to topple President Bashar al-Assad, according to military analysts in Europe and the Middle East.”

These groups have stated time and again that their main objective is to take control of the country and establish an extremist Islamic state.

Are we really about to put the lives of our troops at risk and spend millions of dollars in the process (billions if a missile strike turns into something more) to do little more than grant al Qaeda their wish?

Many who are calling for a military intervention feel that we are obligated to protect Syrian civilians, who have suffered roughly 40,000 deaths in the conflict. But a military intervention, especially a bombing strike, would only kill more civilians.

Our intervention in Iraq resulted in the deaths of well over 100,000 civilians, with the highest intensity of deaths occurring during the first three weeks – as we were carrying out bombing operations on the Hussein regime.

The U.S. says the Syrian chemical attack killed about 1,400 civilians. It would take just a few of our bombs landing off target before we match or exceed that total.

And if you somehow think this is necessary collateral for establishing a peaceful democracy, I’ve got news for you: we’ve tried doing that, and it doesn’t work.

Now the big question is: who used chemical weapons?

Despite providing no concrete evidence it was Assad and acknowledging it is not “100 percent” sure, the Obama Administration is giving no thought to the possibility that it was the murderous terrorists whom Assad has been fighting.

On Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry presented evidence proving the chemical agent Sarin was used; something he says points to Assad.

However, as reported by Rueters in May, we know that members of a Syrian al Qaeda offshoot were in possession of Sarin.

According to NSNBC international, there have also been claims from high-ranking members of these same groups that their colleagues have chemical weapons.

One must also consider that using chemical weapons was clearly an act of desperation, and contrary to what you may have heard, the rebels, not the Assad regime, are desperate.

As reported by CBS News in July, the rebels are losing, and their victories have become increasingly rare in recent months.

From a strategic standpoint, Assad had nothing to gain from using chemical weapons. He knew that in doing so, he would open the floodgates for the American war machine.

However for the rebels, there was nothing to lose. The support they had been receiving from the U.S. and our allies just wasn’t enough, and they knew how badly we wanted an excuse to intervene. A chemical attack, when blamed on Assad, would be the perfect opportunity for us to take care of Assad for them.

Besides, it’s not like al Qaeda affiliates would think twice about killing over a thousand innocents in one fell swoop- they’ve done it before.

The latest evidence incriminating the rebels comes from veteran AP reporter Dale Gavlak, who after dozens of interviews with witnesses, doctors, rebel fighters and their families, is reporting that the chemical weapons used in the attack were provided to the rebels by the chief of Saudi Arabian intelligence.

So why, against a country that is of no threat to us, would we launch a military intervention that will kill more civilians, aid our sworn enemy, punish the wrong side, help terrorists take control of an entire country and – if Russia, China and Iran get involved as they have stated they would – possibly spark World War III?

Perhaps those individuals and corporations misleading you have something to gain – either through campaign funding or increasing their bottom line – from massive defense spending, government contracts, newly accessible resources and all the other perks that come along with war.

For example, Raytheon is one of the leading American arms dealers and defense corporations. It has seen its shares skyrocket as a result of a possible attack on Syria, as reported by International Business Times last week.

Like all defense corporations, Raytheon spends millions of dollars a year on lobbying and campaign funding. Among its top three recipients: John Kerry and President Obama.

Just something to think about.

Nick Smith is a senior broadcast and digital journalism major. His column appears weekly. He can been reached at nxsmith@syr.edu and followed on Twitter at @Nick_X_Smith.

Published on September 3, 2013 at 2:45 am