Letter: What’s the real reason for U.S. role in Syria?

Monday April 16, 2018

Follow the money before believing everything you hear.

Editor:


Your June 10 editorial, "Situation in Syria demands consistent American policy," parrots the narrative that our military support for the Syrian insurgency is purely humanitarian. The press too often fails to mention the proposed $10 billion natural gas pipeline from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and Turkey.


In recent weeks, Bashar Assad's Syrian troops won a number of victories over American-backed rebel forces, and President Donald Trump announced he wanted to pull out all 2,000 of our troops on the ground there. Why would Assad launch chemical attacks to provoke enemies and earn the scorn of the international community?


The U.S. has spent $30 billion on Syrian war so far, and more has been requested for this year. Our generals argue that there's no victory in sight and disagree on what victory would even mean. Many argue we should remain indefinitely.

The Syrian conflict is indistinguishable from other clandestine and undeclared oil wars we have been fighting in the Mideast for decades, using our military and intelligence apparatus to serve the mercantile interests of large corporations, particularly petroleum companies and military contractors that literally have made a killing from these conflicts. We should let the Arabs govern their countries and turn our energies to nation building at home and ending our ruinous addiction to oil.


Perhaps it's time to follow the money and see who benefits from the death and destruction. It's not the American people.


Dean L. Rohrbach
West Reading


What's the real reason for the U.S. role in Syria?