This is not at all something I take lightly. The loss of any human life should not be taken as such, and when there is a systematic approach to taking human life the only action for a super power is to see that those taking life should be stopped and held responsible. The above quotation was written by Aaron Sorkin during season 4 of "The West Wing" where a genocide was taking place (think Rwanda) in a small African nation. This was President Jed Bartlet's response in the episode entitled 'Inauguration: Over There.' For months I have been looking for anyone in the our government to take any interest in the the thousands of lives lost in Syria, so much so that I was even hopeful that some Republican presidential candidates would step to the plate to ask the current commander-in-chief to act. So I was quite pleased last week when the Syrian government tentatively agreed to allow the United Nations to step in with a cease-fire. That said, the government was still attacking its citizens a week before the agreement was to "take hold." (USA Today, 7 April 2012)
My position on intervention might surprise some of you as I am sure most of you see me as a bleeding heart liberal who doesn't think American fighting men and women and their guns should ever step foot in a foreign country. Certainly that has been my position since the Iraq war started in March of 2003 and "ended" in May of 2003. Unlike some hypocrites and panderers in Congress I really was against the war and never was for it. Afghanistan is another issue... The appeasing attitude of hate held by the Taliban created an atmosphere ripe for al-Qaeda to murder a few thousand of my fellow citizens so I will always be for (for lack of a better word) the war in Afghanistan; especially since we screwed it up the first time around in the 1980s. It is time we get this one right, and I do not care how long it takes. We do need to realize though that it is a country dominated greatly by regional tribalism and perhaps our brand of democracy does not have to be theirs as well--different strokes for different folks.
Back to Syria. The AP is reporting today that "the U.N. Security Council voted Saturday to expand the mission to 300 members in hopes of salvaging an international peace plan marred by continued fighting between the military and opposition rebels." Apparently the "onus" is on Syria, but at a certain point we need to say enough is enough. Even though as one of my Facebook friends Jon Paul pointed out that we won't intervene in a country's affairs if they don't have natural resources we require for our day to day lives, we certainly should when humanitarian issues are at stake. I expect more out of my government, my President, and my fellow Americans--call me pie in the sky and naive, but that is just out I feel.
Nice post. I consider myself an independent who thinks similarly to you re: Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do think that people oversimplify things when they say we only go into a country due to natural resources. First, Bosnia is a good response to someone who makes this assertion. What good reason did we have to go there? You could argue that we did it to curry Muslim favor, but we went over there before 9/11. Then again, as a counterargument, we "only" bombed them, and didn't have a contigency of foot soldiers.
Second, it's important to note that many people DO want to help others, but we're not the only ones in this large country. Often, the only way Americans will go to war is if it affects them in some significant way. If a country has significant resources, and the administration can convince us that they're a threat to our physical well-being, then many people will go to war. But otherwise, people are hesitant, although it doesn't mean they also don't want to go to help others. In other words, people may have multiple reasons for doing something.
Just some thoughts.