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.
No comments:
Post a Comment