Syria Humanitarian?

   It has recently been revealed that the US will send $60 million of foreign aid to Syrian rebels. The question is why? Is it to help oust Pres. Assad? The political answer is "no". The Obama Administration said it is for humanitarian purposes, but I suspect that is a deception to avoid objections to any obvious grant of military aid to the rebels. The likelihood is that we will not ship food and clothing. It is easier to ship money. How that money is spent is anybody's guess, and the chances are that it will be spent on military equipment to defeat Pres. Assad's army.
    Why does Pres. Obama want to oust Pres. Assad? That's anybody's guess, but it probably fits in with our previous money grants to Arab countries, especially Egypt and Libya.
    Pres. Mubarak ran Egypt nicely for many years, with US support of an average $2 billion per year since 1979. For that sum, the US bought military access to the Suez Canal and an acceptance of Israel as a US ally. Too much to pay? Probably, but $2 billion didn't sound like much to the President or Congress, and they paid it. Suddenly, Pres. Obama decided he didn't like Pres. Mubarak anymore and used the $2 billion per year payments as a wedge to obtain Mubarak's ouster. We now have Pres. Morsi, who is part of the Muslim Brotherhood and openly antagonistic to the US, in spite of continuing to receive US grants. He is also especially antagonistic to our ally Israel.
    In Libya, Pres. Gaddafi was in charge. Agreeably, he was a bad actor. He was responsible for the killing of many US citizens, particularly in an airplane crash. He probably deserved ousting, but that is conjectural, because it appears that in his last years he seemed to be more cooperative. In any event, Pres. Obama and Congress spent an estimated $900 million to oust him and replace him with who knows what. Whoever seems to be in charge of the Libyan government appears to be no friend of the US. Several months ago we lost an ambassador and a few other Americans in an assassination. The Libyan government, if there is one, has been no help in placing responsibility for this act of injustice.
    With the poor record of Pres. Obama and Congress spending a substantial amount of money to change the complexion of Middle East politics, why is it that we appear to continue down this ridiculous path?
    I don't like or dislike Pres. Assad of Syria. I know that he ran the country quite well for a number of years and its citizens did not appear to be especially impoverished. Rebels now want control, and the US appears to give support. As we do so, will we be traveling down the path of Egypt and Libya to our own disadvantage?
    The guise of current humanitarian support appears to be based on news reports that Assad is killing his own people. The implication is that "his own people" are innocent civilians and children. That's ridiculous! No leader in his right mind wants to kill the people that he leads. As Assad kills people in Syria, you can be sure that, other than collateral damage, his intention is to wipe out the rebels and retain power.
    Humanitarianism is another word for compassion, which is an emotion of individuals. Some acts or reports generate compassion in some individuals and not in others. In government, there is no room for compassion. Compassion is reserved for individuals and their abilities to act on the bases of the degree of compassion they feel and their capabilities. If individual Americans want to send humanitarian help to the people of Syria, that should be their choice, not the function of the US government.
    How does this add up? The Obama Administration and Congress have a poor record in reorganizing Middle East governments. They should stop spending taxpayer money on such programs. Additionally, the US government should not be in the compassion business and should stop spending money on that, whether actual or a guise for military assistance.