By the time this posts, the United States may well be involved in the conflict in Syria. As I hear about what is going on there, I get an all-too-familiar feeling: that we (the US) are getting sucked into another war, and I don't understand why. Don’t get me wrong, I stand against people killing each other. I do not support the use of chemical weapons. I oppose a government’s exterminating its citizens. I want to see stability in the Middle East. I am against activities that strengthen a country’s ties to Russia and Iran. Countries obsessed with opposition to Israel concern me. Syria embodies all these things I oppose.
Still, I still can’t identify our compelling interest in the Syrian conflict. This internal squabble needs to play out between its own people. I don’t know whether the rebels or government have the moral high ground. I don’t really understand what they are fighting about, and what I do understand isn’t motivating to me. While tragic, this is another example of “wars and rumors of wars” which have occurred since the beginning of time.
Our potential involvement seems to be mostly about national face-saving in general and personal face-saving in particular now that President Obama’s “red line” has been crossed. President Obama is not the first nor will he be the last president to have an unfriendly country thumb its nose at the United States. That’s basically what got us into the Iraq War when Saddam Hussein refused to meet George Bush’s demands to allow inspection of Iraqi weapons (which, by the way, are probably the exact weapons Syria is using today). I can’t see that the world is much better after expending thousands of our soldier’s lives as well as billions of our borrowed dollars.
What is so compelling today that wasn’t compelling two weeks ago? Let’s grant that Syria has used chemical weapons. Let’s agree that this is a change in tactics. Is the use of chemical weapons any worse than using bullets to kill other humans? These are differences in degree, not kind. I’m not a military ethicist and readily admit that I haven’t thought through all of the implications, but it seems strange to me that we only experience actionable outrage when certain types of weapons are used. We’re OK when regimes kill people by the tens of thousands using land mines, rocket launched grenades, exploding artillery, guided bombs, daisy cutters, and plain old-fashioned bullets. Yet when a chemical weapon is used, all of a sudden our sensibilities are offended? I just don’t get it.
I understand the argument about the risk of indiscriminate loss of innocent life using chemical and biological weapons. I understand the concerns about the heinous deaths that can result from exposure to such weapons. As I think about it, however, I think having my leg blown off by a mortar round and slowly dying of infection is also a pretty heinous death. I might be wrong, but I don’t believe a bullet bypasses innocent civilians any more than does a molecule of sarin gas carried along by Brownian motion. I think extra furor over particular weapons is often just moral hair splitting. It’s the world’s equivalent of American debates over assault rifle usage.
Either we have a compelling reason to be involved in Syria or we don’t. I have yet to hear the compelling reason. The decision to intervene cannot be made on moral grounds. We don’t even know who the good guys are in this fight. Getting involved cannot be rightly made for humanitarian reasons as we ignore other places in the world with far greater war-induced crises (i.e. sub-Saharan Africa). Perhaps we hypothesize containing this war will protect our oil pipelines and help defend our ally Israel. I just do not know, and to me, that is the problem. What is the point of getting involved? If there was ever a time for restraint, I believe this Syrian conflict is it. Chemical weapons are a red herring in this debate.
Will we stay out? Absolutely not! We don’t know how. At best, we will lob some Tomahawk cruise missiles at some Clintonesque Syrian aspirin factory. It will have no impact. At worst, Syria and possibly Iran will only be emboldened to press their advantage. Israel may be targeted in retaliation. Then there will be real trouble. I believe the best course of action is no action at all. We need to stop making threats in conflicts where we have no compelling interest. Syria’s conflict does not rise to the level of a compelling interest.
For me, the greater puzzle is why we keep exerting our will and getting into wars to begin with. As much as we would like to believe we can be the moral conscience of the world, we cannot. Our sixteen trillion dollar deficit demands we focus on what is clearly in our interests. We have to learn to exert our will infrequently, strategically and justly. When we do, it should be with clear objectives and unshakeable resolve. We can’t fix every conflict. We can’t salve every wound. We are going to have to live with the reality that human beings can do very cruel things to each other whether we act or not. We need to stay out of Syria – but we won’t.
No comments:
Post a Comment
I encourage your comments and welcome the dialog! I will publish any comment whether positive or negative if made with appropriate decorum toward myself or others. I reserve the right to exclude comments strictly based on my subjective perception of appropriate decorum - author's privilege!