Syrian Tragedy

         I saw a meme today showing four identical photos of the  miserable little Syrian boy with dirt and blood on his face. Heart rending in the very least, unless you believe as some do that unless he's a Syrian Christian, tough shit, next case. I've seen a lot of these and this particular one is aimed at blaming the plight of this waif on the last four presidents' foreign policy.

       I've been thinking for some weeks now that as we continue piling on and blaming different entities and philosophies for the situation in Syria and the 100,000 dead and perhaps a million refugees. As a historian, I believe there comes a time when we need to first, look at cause , effect and then argue over the fix. The persons directly to blame for the Syrian disaster don't live in the US, never have. while the Invasion of Iraq did destabilize the region, a Syria with a strong and popularly supported government would probably not have become the killing field it is today. The Assad regime, father and son, were so hated by their citizens that there was already serious civil unrest well before the Iraq invasion. The Civil war which broke out was hijacked by ISIS and turned into what it is today, which is the largest clusterf**k I've ever seen regarding who's shooting who. Also blame the persons doing a lot of the indiscriminate killing - ISIS.

        We have gotten to the point in our Government, especially the US House, where it matters very little who did what anyplace overseas, what matters is "How can we blame it on the current administration or its policies." We should never forget that the terrorists are the bad guys here. If we did nothing, the killing would continue.  They are the ones doing the killing. There is no "wise old man" regarding the current situation, as it has never existed before. As a very quick example of how off the rails the Congress is, and yeah, it's primarily the far right leaners who play the game, consider this: The year is 1983, old "Talk tough" Ronnie is Pres. there were four separate attacks on US installations from April 18 1983 to September 1984. Those  four separate  terrorist attacks in Lebanon in the 1980s killed over 240 including the videotaped torture and execution of the CIA station chief .

        What foreign action did the Reagan administration take?  None! There was a reorganization of how forces are deployed (over Military objections) and, oh yeah, we secretly shipped Hawk missiles to Iran and hoped they'd put pressure on Hezbollah to stop terrorist activities against US interests in Lebanon. With the proceeds we illegally funded another guerilla war in Nicaragua. But back to the middle east. A bi-partisan committee of the US House was convened to investigate what went wrong. Remember this was after the second attack on the Marine barracks killed more than 200. The Committee's report made recommendations on ways to enhance security, and criticized military commanders on the ground for lax security. There was no mention of the President or Secretary of  State. Contrast that with the 4 deaths at Benghazi, defended less than was desirable because the CIA was using the annex to provide weapons to Libyan (good guys) and didn't want to attract attention. Mrs. Clinton acceded to their wishes. Following the 1983 committee's recommendation for security upgrades, there were two more attacks! In March '84 the CIA station chief, as mentioned above, was kidnapped and killed on video TV. Reagan watched, and was desolate. However, in September, 6 months later, when the Beirut Embassy annex was bombed and more Americans killed, the recommendations hadn't been implemented. Again, no one pointed fingers at the President or SecState. Reagan's response was to liken the failure to beef up security to redoing your kitchen "You know, it never seems to get done as quickly as we'd like"(!!) Yes, he actually used that analogy!         

        So, if you're gonna blame US foreign policy for the current lamentable situation, you ought to at least have a "better idea" of what should have been done. So far, and believe me I've given this a lot of thought, there are only two real points at which we could have acted (or not acted) in the here and now (last 20 years) in such a manner as to change history. The first, obviously, don't go to Iraq and destabilize the regime. don't tell Americans "We won't engage in nation building," and then commit to doing just that.  The second opportunity came soon after when the rebuilding of Iraq was sidetracked by Donald Rumsfeld's edict that no former military or law enforcement persons from the Saddam Hussein regime were to be included in the new security and police forces. With one hideously bad decision, Rumsfeld, who had far too much power for his weak President to counter, alienated and made paupers of many of Iraq's brightest and most experienced public personnel, almost driving them to the arms of  ISIS in a sense.

        Try as I may, this is all I got. Blaming Bush 41, Clinton or Obama may make some feel good, as I'm sure it does, but it's simply not realistic. In much the same way, the continued harangue on Benghazi  where four died after funds for enhanced security were requested and denied by the same Congress which then laid all the blame at another Clinton's feet, is ludicrous. The deaths were tragic, but pale by comparison to Reagan's  inaction when there were about 240 more deaths. So in summary, if you're angry at seeing photos like those of that poor child, blame the brutal animals who do the killing in the name of God.

Otherwise, unless you wish to put boots - your boots-  on the ground, well, you know.