More war from our country is a bad choice. But what do we do instead?
Do the Syrian people matter to us? Does the use of modern warfare, and banned chemical weapons, on other people, matter to us? Should it?
Over the last year, I've been reading and listening to pundits, often cynically, talk about both the real reasons why the United States would or wouldn't intervene in Syria, and about the reasons that going to war in Syria would be a catastrophic failure.
But what's the right thing to do? Is staying completely out of a conflict always the right choice? Was it the right choice in Rwanda? And what are the options, beyond warfare, that our nation has at its disposal?
I've yet to see anyone talk about the catastrophic failure of Rwanda. In the 90s, Rwanda underwent a civil war, resulting in the ethnic cleansing of the Tutsi population by the Hutu ethnic majority. Hotel Rwanda is an excellent film about the genocide. Our country delayed action for many months. We never intervened militarily, we never intervened in a humanitarian way either, and over 500,000 people died. None of us will ever know what the outcome of an intervention would have been. Would we have been able to stop the deaths? Would it have been worse? There is no way to know.
The Syrian civil war is threatening the stability of Jordan, Turkey and Northern Iraq. The Syrian civil war has created over one million child refugees. In 2011, President Obama suggested that Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad step down. So far, he's remained in power, and the civil war has continued.
I believe that a bombing campaign, or the entry of the United States into the Syrian Civil War, is a bad idea. I don't see how more war will help anyone in the region. I've read and listened progressive pundits, and some conservative, make the same case, that war is a bad idea. I've also read some people make the case that there is no intervention that the United States can or should take.
I haven't heard anyone offer, or even suggest, trying to help the Syrian refugee populations in Jordan, Northern Iraq, or Turkey. Or even suggesting that we ask those nations how to best help them. I believe we can, and should, offer that assistance, and do so publicly, while continuing to condemn the Assad regime's abuses.
But is that the right thing to do? Should we stay completely out of the conflict, like we did in Rwanda? Do we decide that we should only intervene everywhere there is a crisis, or nowhere at all?
In other words, rather than discuss why invading or bombing Syria is a bad idea, or why Syria has natural gas (so of course we would invade) or doesn't have enough natural gas (so of course we wouldn't intervene), I'd like to know what people think is the better option. Can we help the refugees, or the Syrian people? If so, what's the best way?
I don't hear this talk anywhere. I see corporate news media banging war drums, and pundits talking about those war drums, but I don't see anyone offering a counternarrative, or other options.
I also don't see anyone talking about whether we should just stay out it, and the moral consequences of doing so. I'd like to know what people think is the right thing to do, not just their opinions on obviously wrong choices.
And if the best answer you can can come up with is stating the obvious, (ie, the best option would be not to bomb Syria!), then please don't bother.
2:08 PM PT: Two good reads on this subject. Rwanda has probably been on the President's mind. The Washington Post published an editorial about Syria along those lines in April 2013. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...
And if you're wondering why there are no economic sanctions against Syria, just remember that Russia is on the UN Security council, and won't allow them.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...