“While we continue to believe that there is no military solution to this crisis and that the United States should not put American troops into combat in Syria, this request marks another step toward helping the Syrian people defend themselves against [Assad] regime attacks, push back against the growing number of extremists . . . who find safe-haven in the chaos, and take their future into their own hands by enhancing security and stability at local levels,” National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said in a statement.There's no military solution, but we'll spend half a billion dollars on military aid, because it's just pocket change anyway. And look how successful we've been throwing trillions of dollars at Iraq and Afghanistan. And we have no better ways to spend all that money, anyway.
Look, a well-intentioned president of the United States sees the brutality of the Assad regime and wants to do something. That's understandable. It's a powerfully humane instinct. The problem is that sometimes there's nothing even the nominally most powerful man in the world can do. Particularly when there's no military solution.
And what happens when that $500,000,000.00 proves to have solved nothing? An admission that it was all for naught, or more good money after bad? Or worse? What could possibly go wrong?