If you don't already know, the conflict in Syria poses quite a dilemma to the United States, and the world. A civil war rages on, fueled by attempts of majority sects to over throw a minority sect who govern the country, lead by president Bashar al-Assad. It also appears that Assad has used chemical weapons on thousands of rebels, including innocent children, a direct violation of global laws, to fend off the attempts to overthrow him. For years their have been public demands for Assad's resignation from office and the resulting civil war has lead to around 100,000 lost lives and millions of fleeing refugees. The Syrian economy has been crippled and many of their cities are destroyed war zones.
This situation leads to many questions, "What must done?", " Can anything be done?", and "Should anything be done at all?". All valid questions and several valid answers exist for each. Many would argue, including Barack Obama, that the U.S. must militarily strike down Assad's rule to bring about order and peace in the nation, save innocent lives, and to enforce U.N. laws. The strike would destroy chemical weapons, remove the tyrannical, unpopular leader, and allow the rebels to set up a government that is in the interest of the public. Others would say, that a military strike would be ineffective, create more violence, and enrage the Syrian and various other governments, such as Russia. Then there's the isolationist view that the conflict in Syria is not U.S. business, cannot be helped or mended by our actions, therefore the U.S. should leave it alone, the last thing the country needs is another military conflict or enrage a dangerous government. Clearly, the answers to the above questions depend on one's views of morality.
Recent developments have resulted in what appears to be a diplomatic solution to the conflict. The Syrian government has recently agreed to a plan that would require them to destroy their chemical weapons by 2014. While this sounds like a solution, many remain skeptical. The agreement does not address the tyrannical Assad, who many would say is the root of all the issues, he remains in power and seemingly without punishment. Will removing the chemical weapons really solve what the actual problem, will it stop the refugee crisis, will stop the civil war, will it save the economy. Or must more blunt action be taken. I don't mean to suggest any answers, as I don't think I have one, but I think it is important for people to ask themselves these sorts of questions and to consider the moral dilemmas that result in the various options.
I very much agree with you that this is a very complex situation, as well as being morally testing. However, if we have learned anything as a nation from Iraq and Afghanistan, it is that plans to overthrow dictators and put in place democracy don't work out as ideally as they do on paper. What has happened to the innocent civilians in Syria is truly horrible. I do not feel, however, that we should be helping the rebels as their own character is in question, with many of the rebel groups having close ties to al Qaeda. After 9/11 I do not feel that we should be working hand in hand with anybody in al Qaeda, to say the very least, these people are not our friends, and they are not lovers of democracy nor do they care the slightest bit about the Syrian people. Replacing one tyrannical dictatorship with another is not worth the lives that will be lost fighting in that war.
ReplyDeleteI believe that something should be done here, but it is not war. The United States should cut foreign aid to Syria. The oppressive regime is just using this money to fund the civil war and to kill its people with chemical weapons and for us to have all of this outrage over that, and then continue to provide the necessary resources to the oppressive regime is just outrageous in itself.
The United States is not the world's police. It is actually immoral for people to automatically assume that we have to be the one to go protect everybody else from every evil they encounter in this world. It is immoral for our troops to have to go overseas and potentially die for something that is not in their best interest. It is immoral for the American people to have to give up their increasingly harder and harder to earn money in order to fund a war that they have no particular interest in. It is also immoral for the government to print money in order to fund a war that the American people have no interest in because this money becomes a tax in itself. Most of all, it is immoral for the American people to have to give up their civil liberties due to their involvement in a war that they have no interest in.
Lastly, the wording you used to describe a non-interventionist foreign policy was incorrect. Those who prefer to stay out of the rest of the world's military affairs are not isolationists. An isolationist prefers to not have any ties to any countries but itself. Someone who favors a non-interventionist foreign policy is still for interacting with other nations economically and diplomatically, but not to use military force unless there is an attack first on our soil or an eminent threat is posed to their country.
I am not saying you are wrong in this, as you did not take a particular side. I am just doing my best to answer some of your questions and helping you to see the moral end of the non interventionist belief.
Jeff,I can see you share many views with Ron Paul when it comes to fiscal policy, I tend to agree . Barack Obama might disagree with your view that the U.S. is not the world's police, or at least he would say it is our duty to enforce international law. I wasn't really trying to define specific non-interventionist ideology necessarily, but just giving an example of one of the many possible views on the issue.
ReplyDeleteGood distillation of the various points of view. I am already looking forward to the discussion on Syria. Jeff, you also contributed some useful distinctions in your comments.
ReplyDeleteIf I can just play devil's advocate here for a moment: Tanner and Jeff, you both suggest that the military action being contemplated was something like invasion or overthrow. But the explicit policy prescription was a limited, targeted airstrike to act as a punishment for violating an international norms. In some ways this argument seems to me much more problematic. But it is arguably also less subject to some of the specific objections you raise about loss of lives on our side. Leaders like "clean wars" with fewer casualties on our side because they are more popular. Does a totally "clean" war for our side change the calculation?