U.S. Financial Aid to the Syrian Rebels This work is considered exceptional by our editorial staff.

March 14, 2013
Custom User Avatar
More by this author
385,000,000 dollars. That’s how much money the U.S. government gives to the Syrian rebels to help them overthrow their president Bashar Assad and his unruly military. Although it’s good to have allies, there is a point where you can become too involved, and that is exactly what the United States is doing. The government is becoming immersed in foreign affairs that we don’t need to be tangled up in and also that we cannot afford.

While I agree that President Assad should be overthrown, I believe the rebels need to fight on their own. They deserve to be free of this dictatorship but not at our expense. The United States currently puts three hundred, eighty five million dollars in humanitarian assistance to help out the civilians affected by the uprisings. We also supply approximately fifteen million dollars in non-lethal support to the rebels who oppose the Syrian government. Additionally, we will soon be providing food rations and medical kits to feed the hungry, and aid the sick and wounded. As of March 10, 2013, the United States debt clock, was at $16,712,149,240,653.71. The number on this detrimental clock rises by the minute. Do we really need to be funding wars we don’t belong in and sticking our noses into other country’s business when it could all potentially backfire on us? Absolutely not! Not to mention the fact that the U.S is in so much debt, we cannot afford to continue doing this.

If the Syrian rebels cannot overthrow the government even with all the help other countries are supplying, then there poses a great threat. The threat that President Assad orders his military to war with us because of the help we are giving to the rebels. Obviously if he doesn’t want to be overthrown, which he clearly doesn’t then, he will do everything in his power to make certain he stays president. That may include declaring war with the U.S. UN ambassador Susan Rice said, outside military actions, carries “a risk it ends in more violence.” Jmz, from Clearfield, Utah said, “It's merely putting your nose into other countries’ business. They have been fighting and rebelling for centuries, and our presence would make no difference unless we intervened offensively militarily. … Anyway, as the past has shown us countless times, once we help the rebels and they thrive, our next enemies could be them.” This is spot on and I couldn’t agree more. Nobody, including me knows the dangers we could face if we continue to help not only the Syrian rebels, but other countries who are in need.

The United States is already financially aiding Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, Russia and approximately fourteen other countries who are currently at war with other countries. I don’t agree with this either. We are giving up our military supplies, money, time and our services. What if we give a country millions of dollars in aid, and they use it against us instead of using it to save their own cause? We cannot afford to have this happen! The debt rises more and more every minute and the U.S government can’t pay it back. So tell me how it makes sense to continuously give up money we don’t have, to countries who aren’t always so trustworthy.

The largest portion of our population in the U.S. were against helping Syria. Many people said if they wanted to overthrow the government, all the power to them, but without our financial help. We have too many of our own problems to worry about. If we had the money and we weren’t in over sixteen trillion dollars of debt, then of course, we should help the people who are in need of our financial assistance. The complication is , as i have stated many times, we do not have the money to assist them.

Now comes the question, “Should the U.S. or the United Nations support the Arab Spring or the revolutions being started against dictators in the Middle East?” I believe the answer is yes. Absolutely, we can give the rebels moral support. If we morally support them, we have nothing to lose. We won’t have to say we provided them with tools that could potentially be used against us, and we won’t have given up any of our monetary resources. If anything, we could gain more allies from providing moral support. The more allies we have, the better off we are as a country. Plus, there is nothing wrong with supporting rebels who are trying to overthrow a dictator because they are being oppressed. As a human being, I don’t think there is anything wrong with trying to free yourself or your country from harm. If you are being viciously treated, then do what you need to do to save yourself from being abused. Those are the most important reasons I believe it is okay to support the revolutions and the Arab Spring.

I believe we need to stop sending our monetary resources to support other country’s problems. We have our own issues to mend. I hope the Syrian rebels can overthrow their government, so they can live better lives, but without our financial services. The U.S. needs to learn how to stop sticking our noses in other country’s business. We also need to learn that it’s okay to say no when another country needs our fiscal help. After all, we can’t even completely support ourselves as a country. As James Brown once said, “Take care of yourself, and God helps those who help themselves.”

Join the Discussion

This article has 1 comment. Post your own now!

eternitykf This work has been published in the Teen Ink monthly print magazine. said...
Mar. 22, 2013 at 1:27 pm
I understand your concern for your country, but I think your argument that the rebels should do everything on their own is unfair. Syria is falling apart because the government is getting external help. Most of the world knows this, but has the same point of view that you have. I'm sure the Syrian population is grateful for all the aid the US has offered, but hundreds are dying everyday. I think that there should be more than one country helping. The rebels barely have weapons to defend them... (more »)
Site Feedback