I agree to Idea Send First Responders to Syria
Voting Disabled
I disagree to Idea Send First Responders to Syria


This idea is active.
FEMA Think Tank »

Send First Responders to Syria

Regarding Syria, if we're going to bomb and there's nothing we can do about it, the least we could do is have some emergency personnel on the ground who can ensure that any civilian casualties get proper medical treatment. Because there are going to be civilian casualties. Also, it would eliminate the possibility of the planes flying over and bombing the emergency response personnel, because they do that sometimes, and they shouldn't. They wouldn't, if they knew that some of the responders were Americans. And it will help alleviate the backlash that will occur when we make a mistake, and bomb a school or something.


Of course, the best thing would be if, instead of bombing Syria, we just sent doctors and emergency personnel. And news cameras. And people with blankets, and food, and medicines. FLOOD them with aid. That would A. Ensure we have witnesses in case of any other usage of chemical weapons, hopefully deterring further usage, and B. Eliminate the possibility of civilian casualties that will occur with an airstrike. Oh, and Syria would have no reason to go to war against us, or against Israel. They would have no reason to hate us. Some of the people we send would be killed in the civil war, yes, but we could send a lot of military doctors and emergency personnel; some of them would die anyway if we bombed, because some planes will be shot down when they fly over. Not that that's a good thing, but wouldn't it be better if they died giving hope, instead of bombing?

Submitted by in Sep 2013

Comments (3)

  1. Really i welcome the motivation but area of Bombing personnel some emergency personnel on the ground who can ensure that any civilian casualties get proper medical treatment quite correct but do we [lan the strategies correctly to avoid less civilians casualty.
    What are the defensive area of US Citizen abroad regards to this event .
    I think sendding intervention to those area cannot solve this edemic Islamic culture .Diplomacy lets plan ahead to buld up our Nation First not approach of foreign policy economic broken .
    Also send man power support never a problem .
    I am prepared to go since i sign to defend my Nation right if i am call .Pledge
    in Sep 2013
  2. There is absolutely no doubt that war is a form of man-made disaster. But there are realities in warfare which run contrary to our collective sense of altruism.

    First, wars occur for many different reasons, but in every case the tactics of diplomacy, law and logic have failed. The only perceived solution in the mind of some is to use violence to achieve their goals. This is tragic and unfortunate because no one really wins in a war; but warfare is a part of the human condition that will never be eliminated.

    Understanding that wars will take place, how do we mitigate the effects of wars that we cannot prevent? On the purely humanitarian side, we declare that we should send medical aid to assist those who are wounded and/or ill. This is noble and just, but there is little practicality involved.

    Most of the wars fought in the past 100 years were conducted with little regard for the international rules of warfare. Belligerent states fighting for survival take whatever steps they deem necessary to defeat their enemies, so they can survive. As a result, even nations which "observe" the rules of warfare sometimes do not obey them, and the result is the slaughter of unarmed civilians, and members of the protected classes (clergy, wounded, children, medical personnel, prisoners) who are not able to defend themselves.

    We, as a race of sentient beings, have observed these atrocities time and again. While it is noble to advance the idea of sending medical personnel into Syria, we risk losing the very valuable resource we will need.

    Please think about this: isn't the protection of a critical resource a fundamental requirement of emergency response?

    The concept that fighter and bomber pilots would know who was on the ground, and where they were at any given moment, as a way to guarantee no medical personnel were killed or injured is not realistic. At 20,000 feet when the bombs are dropped, people are barely visible on the earth below.

    Belligerents often hide inside "protected" facilities; schools, churches, hospitals, mosques, and other places regarded by the laws of warfare as sanctuaries. Regardless what you think about the practice, belligerents take over these facilities and use them for military purposes to avoid detection or to avoid attack. However, once the opponent knows the structure is occupied by the enemy, it loses its status as a protected structure and now becomes a viable and legal target.

    I am a combat veteran. I have served in the US Army Infantry, and in the US Air Force Security Forces. I have served on active duty through three armed conflicts; Vietnam, The Gulf War, and during the Post-9/11 conflict. I understand warfare, I understand belligerence, and I understand the law of warfare as well as military law.

    Risking a strategic asset (medical personnel) purely for the purpose of altruism is not logical, regardless of what our sense of humanity tells us. I would offer a better option; hospital ships in the region, and medical evacuation by U.N. forces by land, sea and air. The U.N. forces assume the risk, and the medical personnel can still perform the services needed in close proximity.

    This has several benefits: medical personnel cannot be targeted as a means of disrupting military operations; medical personnel cannot be captured, tortured and killed for media exploitation by terrorists or belligerents; and victims can be treated in a secure manner and later evacuated to a safe place during recovery.

    Placing such a valuable resource as civilian doctors and nurses on the battlefield during asymmetrical warfare is not the answer. Ask yourself this question: how long would it take to replace a doctor killed in combat? If your answer is "as long as it takes to fly the replacement doctor to the combat zone", you are not thinking critically. The real answer is how many years of education, intership and residency are required to make a new doctor to replace the one that was killed.

    My humanitarian instincts are as good as anyone else's, and the fact that I have been a combat soldier does not make me less atruistic. But, it does make me better informed about the negative aspects of risking resources in a combat area, no matter how good the intentions may be.
    in Sep 2013
  3. Are you really serious about this? If you want to volunteer, God Bless You. My opinion, the government can barely afford to meet current payroll of emergency agency personnel. Actually, sorry, your idea is absurd. Start a war and simultaneously send doctors to help? Yikes.....
    in Nov 2013

Vote Activity Show

(latest 20 votes)