US involvement in Syria could cost up to $1 Billion per month

If CNN sources are correct, President Obama is about to move ahead with plans to begin arming Syrian rebels. This has long been a desire of overly-hawkish politicians on both sides of the aisle, but it hasn't come to fruition due to a few ugly realities. Chief among them is the fact that many of the factions we'd be arming have direct ties to Al Qaeda.

---

Now, however, it seems that the Republican-led House Intelligence Committee has overcome concerns about vetting the groups we'd be arming. According to chairman Mike Rogers (R MI) "The House Intelligence Committee has very strong concerns about the strength of the administration's plans in Syria and its chances for success. After much discussion and review, we got a consensus that we could move forward with what the administration's plans and intentions are in Syria consistent with committee reservations." In other words, "we're not sure this is such a good idea, but go ahead and do it anyway."

---

---

The notion that we can somehow be sure U.S. weapons and support will only be used by those groups we've "chosen" seems deeply dubious. There's simply no way to guarantee that our shipments won't be intercepted, purchased, or captured by Al Qaeda backed factions that would love nothing more than to turn them against the West. Even if we could guarantee their security, there's no way to be sure that the people we've selected will use our armament in a way we'd be able to support. For example, there are already multiple stories of Syrian rebels killing, raping, and - in at least one case - eating, enemy soldiers and Christian civilians. However, for the sake of argument, let's say that we really could control our weapons once they entered the theatre of war. There's still the matter of cost. On Monday, The New York Times outlined a letter from Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey. In it, Dempsey made it clear that any intervention in Syria was "nothing less than an act of war," and that the last decade has shown "it is not enough to simply alter the balance of military power without careful consideration of what is necessary in order to preserve a functioning state." If Dempsey is correct, gun-running won't be enough. If we shift the balance of power, we'll be responsible for what comes next. According to the Times, such prolonged Syrian intervention would be, to say the least, costly.

In his letter, General Dempsey assessed the risks and benefits of different military options. But his tone was cautionary, suggesting that the Pentagon views all of these options with trepidation. Training, advising and assisting opposition troops, he wrote, could require anywhere from several hundred to several thousand troops, and cost about $500 million a year. An offensive of limited long-range strikes against Syrian military targets would require hundreds of aircraft and warships and could cost billions of dollars over time. Imposing a no-fly zone would require shooting down government warplanes and destroying airfields and hangars. It would also require hundreds of aircraft. The cost could reach $1 billion a month.

Remember, the United States is essentially broke. We're more than $16 trillion in debt. Any money used to fund Syrian intervention would be borrowed, most likely from China. Are we really willing to take out a billion-per-month loan to involve ourselves in a war where neither side is a clear U.S. ally? The Syrian civil war is an internal matter. It's none of our business, and - in the best case scenario - we stand a strong chance of aiding the organization responsible for 9/11. Now would be the perfect time for war-weary bleeding hearts to stand up and tell their President that they've had enough of battle. Syria is a no-win situation, and despite what the Obamas and McCains of the world would have us believe, there is no reason for U.S. involvement.

---