Posted on 04/09/2017 5:09:44 AM PDT by Kaslin
Most of the world is upset about Syria’s use of chemical weapons against their own people – and it should be. It was yet another act of evil, and Bashar al-Assad is a monster. The world will be a better place without him.
But let’s not pretend anyone is going to do anything to facilitate that. President Donald Trump’s “targeted” bombing of the airfield from which the latest chemical attack was launched might stop chemical weapons from being used for a while, but it won’t stop the slaughter in Syria. Because, although no one is willing to say it, the world doesn’t care.
That’s not to say people aren’t bothered. Children gasping for air is a visual that moves all but a few. Still, what happens in Syria to Syrians doesn’t affect the rest of the world in any tangible way. Therefore people are not moved to act. If they were, there would be a flood into Syria to join the rebels fighting both Assad and ISIS. As it is, millions of Syrians aren’t even willing to stand up for their fellow countrymen, as able-bodied men flee the country rather than fight for themselves.
Since those in the firing line don’t seem to care, the rest of the world isn’t willing to do what is necessary to prevent what happened this week from happening again. If it were, one of the roughly dozen previous chemical attacks would’ve caused action beyond bombing an airstrip. It didn’t.
The world likes to be seen denouncing monsters and their inhuman actions, but it doesn’t like actually doing anything about it unless forced. And the world is rarely forced to act in a meaningful way on matters of the actions of monsters.
The disaster in Syria is not the fault of the Trump administration. The Obama administration ignored multiple chemical weapons attacks by Assad because it was politically advantageous to do nothing. The media played along, casually mentioning the attacks happened – sometimes – and quickly moving on to the latest update on a Kardashian or some such distraction.
After his red line was obliterated by Assad, President Obama balked. He wasn’t necessarily wrong to do nothing; he was wrong to draw the line if he wasn’t willing to back it up. And he wasn’t willing.
Eventually he cut a deal for Syria to give up its “declared” chemical weapons, congratulated himself and went golfing.
They never cared about Syria, but they had to be seen as caring about Syria. The deal gave them exactly that. From a policy standpoint, I’m not sure that was wrong. Horrible things happen all the time. The civilized world can’t act simply because something horrific happened. But we should probably stop pretending to be surprised when they do.
When it comes to humanitarian crises that require more than money to address, we aren’t interested. People would rather text some number to donate a couple of bucks to a cause so they can feel good about themselves than do anything tangible. It’s a normal human reaction – if it doesn’t affect them directly, they’re not really wrong to.
By next week the world will have moved on to something else. But it’s not next week yet. The bombs just flew, so we have politicians and journalists mounting their high horses and patting themselves on their backs for caring and others condemning the action as unlawful. Everyone falls in line behind whatever suits their political needs, and nothing changes.
We – every one of us – have to pretend to be outraged by awfulness. We have to pretend to be angry over action or inaction. We have to pretend to be saddened by unspeakable acts. But the truth, deep down, is something different.
What happened in Syria is horrible, but it’s not unique. The world sat idly by when it happened in Syria before – as the bodies piled up in Darfur, as untold numbers were slaughtered in Rwanda and countless other places. Why should this time be any different?
When nearly 300 girls were kidnapped and forced into sex slavery by Boko Haram, the civilized world uniformly expressed outrage. To combat this evil act…a hashtag was launched: #BringBackOurGirls. Social media was flooded by people wanting to be seen caring. Soon after, people moved on. Most of the girls are still missing, and the world didn’t do a damn thing that mattered.
The world only cares to be seen caring; acting is of no interest. Do you think the Russian government gives a damn about a chemical weapons attack? That China lost sleep over genocide anywhere? It may be immoral for the world to watch genocide and not act, but it is the world’s default position.
If the great powers of the world really wanted to, they could wipe out ISIS and Assad and stop almost every atrocity. It would require a resolve it hasn’t shown and serious, unfettered military action. The current political climate of the West won’t allow it. Civilian casualties would be high and domestic support would collapse. We want to be heroes, but we want it to be neat. Like in the movies. But war isn’t neat.
If World War II happened today, the West would be passing resolutions condemning Germany and Japan, the Jews would be eliminated and nation after nation would fall to tyranny.
I don’t know what the answer is, but I know it’s not bombing an airfield or pretending a problem doesn’t exist. It lies somewhere in between and not with those who feel good about themselves for feeling bad for others. Maybe the first step is admitting that.
I am not a globalist.
I am an American nationist.
“Because, although no one is willing to say it, the world doesn’t care.”
Wrong. Because the world know it’s Assad or Islamists. He’s bad and they’re worse.
Neocon ramblings ain’t gonna fly with much of the base these days no matter how many pics of dead babies they manage to dredge up.
_______________________________________________________
Exactly!
Assad will be replaced. Just like our tremendous success in Lybia. If you are a Christian, Kurd or any other minority it is time to flee. The day of secular leaders in the Middle East is over.
It is not a matter of not caring (at least for me). It’s that all the alternatives are bad. Decent people in Syria can only hope to flee, for now, since supporting any side of this is folly. Choices:
1) Support “moderate” Islamist rebels (Al Qaeda) against Assad. Terrible. If Islamists win, there will first be wholesale slaughter of Christians and other religious minorities, then civil war rounds 2 through 50 of competing Islamist factions. The cruelest of them will prevail, with a regime that makes Assad’s look like paradise.
2) Support ISIS against moderate Islamists. See above.
3) Support Assad against the Islamists. Better, but horrible solution, that plays into extensions of regional power for Russia and Iran.
4) For the US or any outside entity to arm any side of this, and use military power (especially fecklessly) merely aggravates a bad situation. Good intentions don’t count if you are a civilian bystander killed by foreign versus domestic bombs. Enforcing peace upon the multiple sides of this conflict would require a major application of violence, with much collateral death and suffering, then years of policing by an occupying force. Perfect formula for perpetual guerilla war. Any takers?
5) Blockade Syria to prevent introduction of weapons and war material. In about 50 years, existing stockpiles would be exhausted. Except that blockading Syria is physically and politically impossible.
6) Assassinate Assad or otherwise replace Assad and his regime. Unfortunately, the consensus statesperson that all factions agree upon doesn’t exist. The only way the country has been held together at all is by centralized coercion. Anyone capable of that will be no better than Assad.
7) Cry over pictures of human suffering, and say someone should do something NOW. Talk tough in the UN. Write a strongly worded memo. Finally, solutions that will work...
When you declare war, your intention is to defeat an enemy state -- even to the point of obliterating it.
The U.S. has no intention of ever "defeating an enemy state" these days. Now, we are a global empire whose primary purpose is to occupy these countries -- which means obliterating them defeats the whole purpose of going to war against them in the first place.
We do not occupy countries.
We do not loot countries.
We have no colonies.
If this is an “empire” we really suck at it and should open a history book and find out how it’s supposed to be done.
The U.S. military currently has a presence in more than 80 countries around the globe. There isn't another empire in the history of the world that can lay claim to that kind of armed presence.
Have to agree with you there. That’s why I thought we should do nothing in regards to Syria. Thought that when Obummer was in power and still think that. Doesn’t mean I don’t still like Trump, just disagree with his decision here.
What I would like to see the president do is simply say we have no vital national interest in Syria, both side are crappy, and we are staying out of it.
Agree with you there. During my 2nd deployment to Iraq the Stars and Stripes had an article about the Iraqi government holding biddings for companies to drill new oil fields in southern Iraq. There was a French, Chinese, and American company bidding on this. The article stated the Chinese company won and all I could think is how there is no way in hell any other country than America should be getting Iraq’s oil business after all the blood and money we spent to liberate them.
That's just silly.
We do not "occupy" Germany in any sense.
We do not "occupy" Japan in any sense.
Hey, I hear the US National Guard is in Nebraska -- it's occupied territory! Are they under Martial law??
One of my issues is that we spend a lot of money on forward deployment of US military assets -- and we get nothing for it. BECAUSE WE'RE NOT AN EMPIRE.
One of my issues is that we spend a lot of money on forward deployment of US military assets -- and we get nothing for it.
How 'effing stupid do you think the people who make these decisions really are? Do you think those assets are there as decorations?
All I suggest is that “empire” is an inaccurate word to describe the US. The Left loves to call us an empire. Don’t adopt their terminology. It’s not accurate or helpful.
“No one is willing to say it, but the world doesn’t care”
OK, lets deconstruct this globalist nonsense.
First: I don’t care, at all, who does what to whom over there, I’m happy to say it, and there are many more like me.
Second: There is no political, religious, military or moral entity called “the world”. The planet Earth is inhabited by incompatible and mutually hostile tribes and religions, who, without imposition of peace by the strong will constantly be committing atrocity after atrocity. Use of “the world” means what elite European and settler populations want to happen among lesser breeds without the law, but no longer desire to colonize and rule.
Looking at that neatly dressed peasant woman, for one thing the clothing of all the victims would have to have been removed and disposed using CW protocol for a persistent nerve agent
They really need to train arab disaster actors in more realism if they are going to persuade us to start WW3
That is the stance the US took about Jews during WWII and we saw how that worked out for the world.
Achieving those goals that efficiently would involve enormous casualties.
Completely agree that Trump should not have jumped in with a measured military response. Possibly this was a signal to North Korea, China, etc., that he’ll bite if you tug his chain. It also shuts up the pro-Russia balderdash.
Let’s assume the US actually does have some vital interests in Syria, even if most are negatives with no upside. We don’t want ISIS or other Islamists to have a territorial state; we don’t want Russia and Iran to expand their M.E. influence and be seen as driving us out; we don’t want a failed state next to Iraq; we don’t want refugees fleeing Syria to Europe and the US, etc. Unfortunately, none of that makes the available “solutions” viable. It provides justifications to people like McCain who seek intervention without a clear concept of where it will lead.
They did a fairly good job this time. One does not have to persuade the logical. One only has to convince those who base their actions on emotion. That will always get the results their handlers desire.
But they didn't, so we're in the current mess.
Our leaders are, and have always been, shortsighted and we suffer the consequences.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.