Few would disagree with the fact that the Assad regime’s chemical attack against its own people is morally reprehensible. It is despicable. I agree. It cannot be condoned and should not be tolerated.
Nevertheless, my first question is this: does the responsibility to chastise Assad and his government solely fall on American, U.S. shoulders; and if so, why? Is this not a truly global and international responsibility?
And, if the world governments, including the likes of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea, e.g., are willing to tolerate Assad’s use of chemical weaponry, then we have to ask, what are the deeper issues going on here, such that these governments are willing to turn a blind eye to this deplorable act?
For example, apparently Russia doubts the reports that Assad’s regime used chemical weaponry against its own people, rejecting the evidence as inconclusive. Okay, I therefore ask the same question, put in a different way: Why would a country like Russia choose to reject what seems to be the obvious and side with a government that they know has been both murderous and oppressive of their own people? What does Russia gain by stubbornly supporting Assad against the majority of world opinion? That is to say that there are deeper issues here that I want more fully explained.
What is this really about? Is not the real story about the powers behind the renegade Assad regime? Assad’s government is petty, compared to the outside powers aiding and supporting him (such as Russia or Iran or even China). Thus, would it not be more efficient and effective for Obama to get to the heart of the matter with the likes of Russia and China, e.g., rather then running around trying to convince members of our own legislative houses to support a U.S. limited strike against Syria?
In support of this so-called limited strike, I hear such things as, the regime has crossed the line and our credibility is at stake. Or that it is a moral issue and we must therefore send a clear message that the use of chemical weapons against one’s own people is not to be tolerated. And that our national interest is at stake. Still, I wonder, how is acting like a national moral police-force in the Middle East supposed to be in our best interest—while other nations passively look on, approvingly or disapprovingly?
It seems to me that there are larger and more serious undergirding issues at play here that we citizens are not readily speaking about or being informed about. What in fact is the essential core of our national interest in the Middle East? A military solution seems always to be the only answer in a Middle Eastern crisis; why is our role in the Middle East always reduced to a military one (remember Ronald Reagan’s presidency and his Marines sent to Beirut fiasco)? There are many interests in the Middle East—Russia, China, Iran, Israel, oil—what are we not being informed about respecting these powerful interests in the Middle East? And so, why, for example, do we continually fail to win over a country like Russia, which historically has been as much a “Western” country as it has been otherwise?
So for me, not to strike Syria is not a question of becoming isolationist, as if we’re in danger of becoming mere “spectators to a slaughter.” Limited military strike or not, there is more to this whole Middle Eastern policy than meets the eye. Besides, what does “limited” mean anyway? A punch in the nose is a punch in the nose, an attack is an attack, and a fight is a fight, limited or otherwise; fights cannot be contained or limited, they must be stopped, resolved and brought to an end.
So, as an average Joe American Citizen, I am not convinced. For me, none of the given reasons are sufficient in themselves, or even collectively, in defense of striking:
- It is argued that we shall suffer a loss of credibility or loss of face and that our allies will be disappointed in us, worrying that we will not really be there for them in the future…. This is a lame argument and very unconvincing to me.
- It is argued that not to strike may cause regional instability. I doubt it very much. It’s already unstable. A limited strike such as is now being considered may even have the opposite effect and cause even more instability. For example, our starting the war in Iraq did just that.
- It is argued that inaction will embolden enemy-nations, such as Korea or Iran. I don’t think so. On the other hand, a miss-applied or miscalculated limited strike on Syria may continue to give these countries more reason to denounce us and refuse future possibilities of serious negotiations for lessoning the overall posturing of hostility.
- It is argued that not to take action against Syria at this time poses a national security threat to us. Really! How so? Please spell it out for me because I don’t see how?
- And it is argued that Assad’s regime needs to be chastised and put in its place. True, but by whom? Should it not be chastised by the whole international community and not just the United States?
No comments:
Post a Comment