I did something the other day that I have never imagined I would do...I watched a cable channel called Al Jazeera America. It turns out that, like the BBC, Al Jazeera has a news channel dedicated to North America. I have not watched enough of it to have made a decision as to its "fairness, balance," and such, but it was interesting nonetheless to get a different slant on the "news." Of course, the news dominating Al Jazeera America is the same news as that dominating the American channels: The coming United States invasion of Syria. The particular aspect of this "story" that was covered while I watched was the state of mind of the Syrian people themselves, the "average Joes" of Damascus, in particular. And the state of mind of these average people was not exactly what I expected. In some ways not surprising; in others, very.
On the one hand, the people who spoke to the news reporters were somewhat anti-American in their sentiment, certainly not an unexpected outlook. On the other hand, some expressed views that surprised me just a little. For instance, not all the people are against the Al Assad government. Said another way, not all people there support the Muslim Brotherhood, the strongest faction facing the government at the moment. There are other factions as well, some moderate in idealism, some orthodox, and some very fundamentalist in outlook. Some of the people support one or another of the various factions, but most of the people just want the civil war to someday grind to a halt. Almost universally, however, most of those interviewed do not support an American invasion, and the almost inevitable American occupation of that nation. Most do not believe that any good will result from such an action. None of them believe the "intervention" will result in a "democratic" Syria. Quite a few of those interviewed did not, in fact, want a democracy as you and I know it, they just want peace and stability.
A few Syrians expressed an idea that has only been discussed rarely in American news debates of the Syrian "intervention." These people want to know why the United States government intends to weaken the legitimate government of Syria, to level the playing field so to speak, so that all factions, including Al Assad's army, are of about equal strength. This is indeed a question worth pondering. Remember, the original intention of the Syrian "intervention" was to punish those responsible for the use of chemical warfare, and thus to serve as a "warning" for other "rogue governments" who might feel emboldened to use chemical warfare should the United States NOT invade Syria.
Other Syrians asked a more basic question, and one that certainly begs answer in the halls of Congress, where President Obama is making his case for the Syrian "intervention." This question is, with the Syrian civil war now well over two years old, and with over two hundred thousand people dead directly because of the war, why is the United States only now interested in "intervening?" Put another way, why are the deaths of about 1400 people more important than the deaths of the first two hundred thousand people, in the view of the United States?
Of course the logic expressed by President Obama is that the Al Assad government used chemical weapons on helpless citizens. By this logic, President Obama expresses the idea that the numbers of people killed in a war torn nation such as Syria do not really matter to the world at large, as long as chemical weapons are not used for this killing. But kill just under two thousand people (less than one percent of those killed already in Syria) with chemical warfare...whoa boy, that changes it all! President Obama would have us believe that if the United States does not "teach Al Assad a lesson" and thus does not "warn other rogue governments" by punishing the Syrian government, chemical weapons will start flying the world over! Really? Is Al Assad the ONLY leader with such weapons at his disposal? I don't think so. Will a Syrian "intervention" TEACH the other villains of the world not to use their chemical weapons? Again, probably not.
What, in reality, would be the results of an American "intervention" (read invasion and occupation) of Syria? Listening to the Al Jazeera report was insightful to me. For instance, it is obvious that life in Syria is very difficult at this time, and death is all around. It is clear that civilians are continuing with their lives in the face of constant warfare between the government and the various factions, as well as between the factions themselves. Most of all, it is clear that Syrians do not want and will not support the United States intervention. As constant as death is in that nation, it is obvious that many hundreds, if not thousands, would die defending against the invasion. Even if that did not happen, how many American soldiers would be shot, one by one, by snipers? How many hundreds would be killed or maimed by IEDs? And, how many civilians would be killed as inevitable collateral damage?
No, the people of Syria do not support an American invasion, and, by the way, neither will the rest of the world, other than France and Turkey. The French interest and support of the American invasion puzzles me. Turkey, on the other hand, IS actually endangered by chemical warfare unleashed in Syria. But, save those two nations, world consensus is against a US invasion of Syria. So there will be no "coalition army" for this upcoming fiasco. Syria and Turkey have had border skirmishes several times over the past few years. Turkey does support a "punitive intervention" in Syria...er, by the United States, of course. Turkey does not want to sacrifice ITS soldiers to the upcoming bloodbath.
Perhaps it is just my fantasy, but let us assume that Congress should actually vote against approving the Syrian intervention. And in even DEEPER fantasy, let us assume that Mr. Obama ACTUALLY CANCELLED the Syrian invasion due to the Congressional vote. All is not lost! Not by a long shot. Since Turkey is one of the nations ACTUALLY THREATENED by chemical warfare in Syria, let us call on and support Turkey in an invasion of Syria. Let the Turkish army punish those responsible for the chemical warfare, because after all, Syria is not, and has never been, a threat to the United States of America. Yes, Turkey could deliver the punishment to the "rogues" that fired the chemical weapons, while the United States, and any other nations that wished, could support Turkey by sending hospital ships and medical supplies to the area. After all, if the Mexican government, for instance, fired a chemical missile into Vera Cruz, would we want Russia to invade Mexico to teach that "rouge government" a lesson?
On the one hand, the people who spoke to the news reporters were somewhat anti-American in their sentiment, certainly not an unexpected outlook. On the other hand, some expressed views that surprised me just a little. For instance, not all the people are against the Al Assad government. Said another way, not all people there support the Muslim Brotherhood, the strongest faction facing the government at the moment. There are other factions as well, some moderate in idealism, some orthodox, and some very fundamentalist in outlook. Some of the people support one or another of the various factions, but most of the people just want the civil war to someday grind to a halt. Almost universally, however, most of those interviewed do not support an American invasion, and the almost inevitable American occupation of that nation. Most do not believe that any good will result from such an action. None of them believe the "intervention" will result in a "democratic" Syria. Quite a few of those interviewed did not, in fact, want a democracy as you and I know it, they just want peace and stability.
A few Syrians expressed an idea that has only been discussed rarely in American news debates of the Syrian "intervention." These people want to know why the United States government intends to weaken the legitimate government of Syria, to level the playing field so to speak, so that all factions, including Al Assad's army, are of about equal strength. This is indeed a question worth pondering. Remember, the original intention of the Syrian "intervention" was to punish those responsible for the use of chemical warfare, and thus to serve as a "warning" for other "rogue governments" who might feel emboldened to use chemical warfare should the United States NOT invade Syria.
Other Syrians asked a more basic question, and one that certainly begs answer in the halls of Congress, where President Obama is making his case for the Syrian "intervention." This question is, with the Syrian civil war now well over two years old, and with over two hundred thousand people dead directly because of the war, why is the United States only now interested in "intervening?" Put another way, why are the deaths of about 1400 people more important than the deaths of the first two hundred thousand people, in the view of the United States?
Of course the logic expressed by President Obama is that the Al Assad government used chemical weapons on helpless citizens. By this logic, President Obama expresses the idea that the numbers of people killed in a war torn nation such as Syria do not really matter to the world at large, as long as chemical weapons are not used for this killing. But kill just under two thousand people (less than one percent of those killed already in Syria) with chemical warfare...whoa boy, that changes it all! President Obama would have us believe that if the United States does not "teach Al Assad a lesson" and thus does not "warn other rogue governments" by punishing the Syrian government, chemical weapons will start flying the world over! Really? Is Al Assad the ONLY leader with such weapons at his disposal? I don't think so. Will a Syrian "intervention" TEACH the other villains of the world not to use their chemical weapons? Again, probably not.
What, in reality, would be the results of an American "intervention" (read invasion and occupation) of Syria? Listening to the Al Jazeera report was insightful to me. For instance, it is obvious that life in Syria is very difficult at this time, and death is all around. It is clear that civilians are continuing with their lives in the face of constant warfare between the government and the various factions, as well as between the factions themselves. Most of all, it is clear that Syrians do not want and will not support the United States intervention. As constant as death is in that nation, it is obvious that many hundreds, if not thousands, would die defending against the invasion. Even if that did not happen, how many American soldiers would be shot, one by one, by snipers? How many hundreds would be killed or maimed by IEDs? And, how many civilians would be killed as inevitable collateral damage?
No, the people of Syria do not support an American invasion, and, by the way, neither will the rest of the world, other than France and Turkey. The French interest and support of the American invasion puzzles me. Turkey, on the other hand, IS actually endangered by chemical warfare unleashed in Syria. But, save those two nations, world consensus is against a US invasion of Syria. So there will be no "coalition army" for this upcoming fiasco. Syria and Turkey have had border skirmishes several times over the past few years. Turkey does support a "punitive intervention" in Syria...er, by the United States, of course. Turkey does not want to sacrifice ITS soldiers to the upcoming bloodbath.
Perhaps it is just my fantasy, but let us assume that Congress should actually vote against approving the Syrian intervention. And in even DEEPER fantasy, let us assume that Mr. Obama ACTUALLY CANCELLED the Syrian invasion due to the Congressional vote. All is not lost! Not by a long shot. Since Turkey is one of the nations ACTUALLY THREATENED by chemical warfare in Syria, let us call on and support Turkey in an invasion of Syria. Let the Turkish army punish those responsible for the chemical warfare, because after all, Syria is not, and has never been, a threat to the United States of America. Yes, Turkey could deliver the punishment to the "rogues" that fired the chemical weapons, while the United States, and any other nations that wished, could support Turkey by sending hospital ships and medical supplies to the area. After all, if the Mexican government, for instance, fired a chemical missile into Vera Cruz, would we want Russia to invade Mexico to teach that "rouge government" a lesson?
No comments:
Post a Comment