Shuddering Syria

As a healthcare provider the recent coverage of the exposure to chemical weapons is atrocious.  I am appalled and can only wonder how I would feel if I were those people in that situation asking who can help?  I am also extremely disappointed in the media coverage, or rather, the lack of coverage of what is happening in Syria.  I feel like everything I hear from the major NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN news outlets is a lot of supposition and regurgitation of what one or two reporters for NPR or the BBC have documented.  For such astounding and outlandish actions being taken in Syria a 3 minute excerpt on the national news is ridiculous- they spend more time on the "human interest" stories at the end of half hour than on the actual news that can affect millions around the world depending on the decisions of a few at the top of the political spectrum.

Having said how horrible the situation in Syria has become I respect the action that British prime minister David Cameron took in calling parliament to a vote on whether or not to get involved in Syria.  I do believe the negative vote is a good one at the moment, for in the interest of that country that has not been attacked, they really has no reason to get involved.  I think the US, should take a similar vote in the house as to whether or not to allow action for we have not been harmed nor attacked and I don't think that our involvement would help the situation other than killing more people, likely innocents.

The US is not a guardian of the world, we have not been elected by the UN to enforce a chemical weapons ban.  That being said, I would like to see a UN that has the kind of power that is recognized by all countries.  Currently the UN, in my opinion, seems to act more as a figure head; I do think that it is an important arena to allow peaceful discourse between nations but I think it needs to have a little more strength in it's executive branch.  One can see UN peacekeeping troops in various countries but they withdraw almost as soon as any type of attack comes, to my knowledge there is no offensive mobility or even defensive unless serious endangerment of life is present.  What good is that?  How can one truly protect unarmed people if whoever the opposition is knows that they will withdraw?

The point I am trying to make here is that the US should not get involved unilaterally in Syria, and the UN entity that should be involved, has no power with which to become involved and force a change of action in the civil war. 

The US civil war was a horribly bloody affair in which thousands of thousands died.  However, unless my history is incorrect there was little to no foreign intervention, but rather an observance of action.  Yes, war is horrible and the innocent should not have to suffer, but in this day and age in absence of a strong supported global body to say, "you've gone to far" what can we do but cry out in opposition of senseless death and record the actions taken by both sides?  Anything else would be putting millions more around the world at risk due to allied nations forced to choose sides. 

In a nation as religiously divided as Syria this civil war may be the only way in which the country can learn how to coexist with one another.  I believe countries learn from their mistakes, the US learned from the Civil War and Martin Luther King showed the world how to change things with peaceful protests.  South Africa faced the Apartheid.  Rwanda is still struggling to move forward but the resolution to not allow such blatant hateful genocide is strong.  Europe has taken lessons from WWII and Germany and many eastern countries have emerged stronger.  There are still factions in all these places where hate resides but in resolution to create a better future and stop the killing all these countries have succeeded in increasing the ability of individual citizens to live and survive.

Maybe war is necessary?

And the only thing we can do is send as much humanitarian aid as we can to help those who want to survive peacefully live; maybe that kind of action would go further in bolstering support for democracy and peace than in bombing for peace.  Maybe we are training too many snipers and technicians in our armies and together we should be training more medical, more structural engineers, more carpenters- people who can take up a hammer or a scalpel as easily as a gun if attacked (different from the peace corps).  Talk about a new direction.  A different army.  I wonder if that would get any different media coverage? 

It's human interest. 

WWIII- talk about a revolution

 

I’m curious if anyone else is looking at the civil war in Syria as the possible prelude to world war III?  I look at Syria, and I don’t think it can get any more complicated (my statement of the obvious); you have a Sunni versus Shia, rich versus poor, chemical weapons and an international theater that is slowly aligning itself to various sides.  Currently I see Russia, China, Iran, Iraq and Lebanon together versus tentative Turkey, Israel, France, England, and the United States.  Where the rest of the middle East and Europe would fall would comes down to alliances.  

The United Arab nations and the United Nations are both being slow to react and contrary to what some of our own politicians are saying, the United States is being extremely cautious as well.  We have yet to hear directly from President Obama declaring involvement in Syria, all we have definitively heard is that our military is prepared.   I like to think that we are still the “sleeping giant” that one doesn’t want to wake; however, following our entrance and success in WWII we have since over-extended ourselves in various conflicts: Vietnam, Korea, Iraq/Afghanistan.  We are still a world power that if we were to invoke the draft, and with our technology and past and current defense spending, we could still win a war with relatively few casualties.  The argument that I have heard some say that since we drew “a red line” means we will look weak if we don’t do anything I find completely unfounded.  I think that our strength lies in our ability to assess a situation correctly, which unlike some predecessors, I believe that Obama does extremely well.  I had to laugh the other day when I heard that house speaker John Boehner cautioned the president against quick action when the president has been, in my opinion, one of the most notably cautious in responding to the growing evidence of chemical weapons use in Syria (with France and England being the first to condemn/accuse the Syrian Assad).    

So when do we determine action should be taken?  We were the last to get involved in WWII and only once provoked by Japan bombing us.  The crimes committed then and now were and are heinous and absurd, but what part of war isn’t?  What part of killing each other by snipers, missals, shrapnel, bombs, etcetera, is humane?  Is gas that much more horrible of a death?  Haven’t women and children already been killed?  I know I feel like I am playing the devil’s advocate here but I’m just trying to work this out myself because I would rather not see WWIII and I think that if we were to take any type of unilateral action against the Syrian government just because we drew a “red line” that should not be crossed the result would be a disastrous war.  It’s like measuring the lesser of two evils; people dying in civil war, or people dying in world war? 

WWII we asked congress for permission to go to war, I think we will have to do so again and unfortunately unless there is a direct attack against us I don't think we should go to war.  That being said, I think we should step up the pressure on the UN and the other Arab nations to recognize and condemn the chemical weapon use that has taken place.  Again, I'm trying to work out my own thoughts on this issue-with an audience, and hypothetically say we (as part of a United task force) take out Assad- who will replace the power structure of government?  That is the conundrum... what does history show us? 

What happened to Germany following WWII?  I think the key is support for rebuilding (or in the case of the middle east updating) infrastructure and providing jobs.  I remember seeing in class pictures and documentaries of people, all people, put to work removing rubble and rebuilding across Europe but most notably in Germany- I don't remember seeing this following the fall of Iraq and Afghanistan; that type of massive invocation of community to rebuild community with exemption only for the very young/old and sick.  I remember only seeing US attempts to build various necessary buildings but not community collaboration- only attempts by various suicide bombers to obstruct leaving more warped metal and stone.  I know this is only a partial viewpoint and that many people on both sides that have been working together to form new city markets, grids, etcetera but I would like to see more mass agreement on the need for basic foundations.  I'm being overly idealistic here and this idea of infrastructure is one that I will revisit in the future because even in my current city of Chicago there are massive problems and I can hear readers saying, "you must take the stick out of your own eye before you can take the stick out of your neighbors." 

Therefore, at risk of making this too long, it probably is already, I'll just go ahead and stop for today because this type of conversation can go on in one form or another perpetually and there are so many ideas just put forward here that otherwise I can just jump topic to topic-even this one isn't even fleshed out.  OH WELL.  CIAO.