When WWI and the Great Depression were succeeded only by a greater World War and unspeakable genecide in Germany, the image of Superman was created as a symbol of hope for the world. More than hope though, Superman was truly a symbol of America. A muscled man clad in red and blue that flew into the depths of danger to save innocent lives and protect the peace of the world was exactly the image the world had of the USA and it was that image that we as a country were determined to live up to. But after unsuccessful wars and efforts that left us bloody and hurt without bringing much peace to the world, it seems we have lost the will to fight for others and replaced it with self preservation and cynicism. Anyone who knows me well will tell you that I am about as far as it gets from a bleeding heart liberal and very rarely involve myself in other peoples problems. I generally believe that strife leads to strength. But there are cases of injustice that simply cannot be tolerated.
Many citizens who oppose an American strike in Syria say that Obama put his foot in his mouth when he drew a line against chemical warfare and has no place putting the lives of our military on the line to cover his own ass. But I think this shows how poorly educated most Americans are on most issues, including the history of this particular situation. Mr. Obama didn't draw that "red line" himself, it was drawn by many countries throughout the world, including many in the Middle East, years ago when they drafted and signed multiple treaties banning the use of chemical weapons. This has been a battle the world has fought since the late 19th century when WMDs were first introduced to the world of war in the early years leading up to WWI. Many countries agreed even then that the use of chemical weapons was heinous and should not be tolerated. Even Hitler himself, after surviving chemical attacks during that first Great War, refused to use them against his opposition during WWII (despite admittedly gassing thousands of minorities in his own state).
The conflict in Syria is not as recent as many Americans are aware either. The war there has continued for over 2 years now and as French and Saudi Arabian intelligence will inform you, president Bashar Al-Assad has fought with cruelty and inelegance since the beginning.
The attack on Damascus killed nearly 1,400 innocent Syrian men, women, and children while they slept, according to American reports. And this is only one example of the massacre that the Assad regime is inflicting on it's people.
What we are witnessing in Syria is not a civil war between its people like ours was. It is a people fighting for their lives against a government that has mistreated them for generations. In the past year, the killing in Syria has multiplied tenfold going from less than 5,000 dead in 2011, and 10,000 in 2012 to over 100,000 people perished this year and "another 5,000 are being slaughtered monthly according to the UN", says Nicholas Kristoff at the New York Times. 2 million Syrian survivors have fled their homes and are refugees in neighboring lands.
In the face of all this horror, it is baffling that a people once considered the superhero that would save the world are willing to turn a blind eye and say that it's simply none of our business.
President Obama has explicitly stated that the strike is not intended to end the war or even take a stance on what the outcome should be. The reason for military action is that we cannot stand idly by while thousands of innocent people are slaughtered every day by means that we have sworn for over a century to protect them against.
The American opposition and those in other countries that speak against a strike do pose valid points. Generally speaking, a diplomatic solution is almost alway preferable to military action. But with Russia using it's veto power to block any resolution in the UN on the matter and Assad's regime refusing to participate in peace negotiations, our options are limited. Even Bashar Al-Assad said in 2009, "there's no substitute for the United States."
Any outcome of their war is scarey for the US. Assad is a dictator and if he wins, his people will endure immeasurable suffering and turmoil in the years to come. If certain groups of extremist jihadi rebels manage to claim victory, it will put or direct enemies in a position of immense power. We must hope for the strength of the moderate rebellion to gain it's footing and overcome their adversary. But if there is a potential result that is clearly favorable to all other possibilities, shouldn't the US actively support it?
Syria is not Iraq. Obama is not putting American boots on the ground (not yet anyway), and the evidence that the Syrian government not only possesses but has used chemical weapons is clear and backed by several different country's intelligence, including France who are generally not keen on much action from the US in any form. Nor is Syria Bosnia where we intervened to prevent further catastrophe and chose to end a war that had gone on long enough. We cannot compare and contrast Syria to passed situations because it is far too complicated and unlike anything we have been involved in. Assad broke international laws that we as a nation have enforced for decades and we must stand by our principles now.
When did the most powerful country in the world decide it was no longer our duty to protect the innocent from their villains? Ignoring the situation is just as bad as condoning Mr. Assad's actions. When did we as a nation become so selfish and cynical that we are able to condone the slaughter of thousands of people simply because we'd rather not get involved? We teach our children that they need to stand up to bullies on the playground when they beat on the weak. We tell them to be strong and stand up for what is right. Perhaps it's time we practice what we preach and let Superman do his job.
No comments:
Post a Comment