In a recent CNN article, it was asked if “bombing Syria” is good for the U.S. economy in the long run. The article argues that bombing Syria would bring more jobs and higher wages for Americans while also reducing joblessness in the United States. Whether or not an economic benefit to bombing Syria exists is up to debate, but one thing is for sure: the Middle East and North African countries are among some of our most important trading partners, accounting for 10% of America’s annual trade figures. If threats from ISIS or potential tensions with other countries rise so high as to damage trade relations between America and its neighbors, it could cost us greatly economically. The article argues that bombing Syria, and therefore ISIS, creates a stable trading environment. “When President Obama began bombing ISIS targets in Iraq back in August, the value of the U.S. dollar quickly shot up by almost 2 percent,” argues the CNN article. It continues: “The same thing happened to the pound after Great Britain joined Obama’s coalition” in September. This logic makes sense: if foreign citizens believe a country will be at war for an extended period of time, they will want to stockpile their country’s currency before it loses its value due to inflation (a natural by-product of war). Traders would therefore buy large amounts of U.S. dollars and U.K. pounds before they lose their value, resulting in an increase in demand of those currencies. The logic that an economic benefit exists to bombing Syria follows the same premise as this CNN article: people will buy more U.S. dollars and U.K. pounds to hedge against potential losses in trade with America or damage to America’s economy outside of war, which could lead to more jobs for Americans as a result of strong trade relations with foreign countries. But how much would buying extra dollars really help the economy? According to Investopedia, “the impact that a decline in the value of one currency has on another is related to the degree of correlation between the two. Strong currency correlation results in a negative impact on the exchange value of the second currency, which occurs when the second currency is weak.” In other words, a weakened dollar has more direct influence on our economy than does an increase in demand for dollars. The chart below displays how a weakening U.S. dollar affects the rest of the world. “An increasing value of the dollar reduces financial flows out of countries that have not built up reserve assets for poor economic performance,” explains Investopedia. “In other words, the weaker U.S. dollar acts as a capital flow stabilizer.” If bombing Syria does lead to more jobs for Americans and less unemployment in America, we must remember that not every dollar Americans earn goes straight to the stock market. If people were forced to spend all or some of their income on goods and services produced within Syria, it could increase economic activity in the country which would benefit our economy indirectly by providing a source of labor for American industries outside of war-torn Syria. As such, “bombing Syria” may have its upsides but the effects are unlikely to be as dramatic as suggested by CNN’s article.