So, America sent some missiles to Syria in retaliation for their alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians. Maybe you've heard. We can all agree that the use of sarin gas is horrific and cruel, though, of course, so is war in general. The question that has agitated and divided the American public is whether or not we were justified in retaliating against a regime that has not actually committed any acts of aggression against our own country or citizens. Are we called to police the world? Do we have a moral duty to protect the weak throughout the world? Should we interfere with civil wars overseas? I don't know. I'm just a 27-year-old blogger (okay, wannabe blogger) who has never been in the military or the government. There's a reason I don't make decisions like this. Having a social media profile doesn't make me or anyone else an expert at foreign policy. I don't know what our foreign policy, but here's what I do know:
1) Wars are always more complex than the public is allowed to know. Conflicts like this almost always have back stories that go back decades. Money and power are almost certainly factors. There are people somewhere meeting behind closed doors making decisions over expensive cigars and dry liquor. History will never know all the complexities that lie behind our President's decision to attack Assad. To think that "kids getting gassed" is the full story is naive and shortsighted. There is more to this than meets the eye, but who's to say that the public should really know everything that goes on. There's a fine line between transparency and exposure.
2) America is not morally superior to Syria. We here in America believe in what you might call American exceptionalism. Those days are past. We are no better than any other country in the world. If you think using sarin gas on children is evil, then what about crushing the heads of full-term babies in the womb? Yeah, you have to be pretty sick to think that either of those things is morally justifiable, and yet, the latter remains legal here in our fair country. God bless America, eh?
3) You can't help everybody. Have you ever seen one of those infomercials about saving the orphans in foreign countries? For just pennies a day you can give a hungry child food, clothes, and an education. They tug at your hearts strings until you want to save every single child. It's great to support these kinds of ministries, but, unless you're extremely wealthy, you can only support so many of them. At some point you have to admit that you can only help so many people. How do you decide when and where to do that? The same principle is true for meddling in international affairs. America can't possibly retaliate against every regime that violates human rights. How do we decide when to get involved? When should we desist? Unfortunately the answer is usually political as humanitarian concerns are often a cover for power grabs. Even when our intentions are pure, however, the reality remains that we do not have the resources to save everybody. The question then becomes whether or not we have the responsibility to intervene in any situation that does not include our citizens or our national interests. We can take it yet one step further and ask whether we have the right to interfere in any situation that does not directly affect our country or citizens. I, an advocate of old-school non-interventionism, would say we should mind our own business, but I can definitely understand the desire to come to the aid of those who are being persecuted. Who decides whom we help? Let me assure you that it is people with political motives. Millions of people on the Asian and African continents are being persecuted for religious and political reasons, but we have yet to come to their aid. For some reason we only feel the need to interfere in places that are economically advantageous.
4) Violence is always bad, but not always wrong. It is never a good thing when people die in war, regardless of whether the weapons are chemical or conventional, but that doesn't mean that we should never use violence as a means to establishing peace and order. Wisdom is required to know when violence is necessary (which is why electing a president is such an important task), and we must remember that, even when violence is justifiable, it is still tragic.
That's about all I can say on the topic. Frankly, I'm glad not to have the kind of responsibility President Trump has right now. It truly is a lose-lose scenario.
1) Wars are always more complex than the public is allowed to know. Conflicts like this almost always have back stories that go back decades. Money and power are almost certainly factors. There are people somewhere meeting behind closed doors making decisions over expensive cigars and dry liquor. History will never know all the complexities that lie behind our President's decision to attack Assad. To think that "kids getting gassed" is the full story is naive and shortsighted. There is more to this than meets the eye, but who's to say that the public should really know everything that goes on. There's a fine line between transparency and exposure.
2) America is not morally superior to Syria. We here in America believe in what you might call American exceptionalism. Those days are past. We are no better than any other country in the world. If you think using sarin gas on children is evil, then what about crushing the heads of full-term babies in the womb? Yeah, you have to be pretty sick to think that either of those things is morally justifiable, and yet, the latter remains legal here in our fair country. God bless America, eh?
3) You can't help everybody. Have you ever seen one of those infomercials about saving the orphans in foreign countries? For just pennies a day you can give a hungry child food, clothes, and an education. They tug at your hearts strings until you want to save every single child. It's great to support these kinds of ministries, but, unless you're extremely wealthy, you can only support so many of them. At some point you have to admit that you can only help so many people. How do you decide when and where to do that? The same principle is true for meddling in international affairs. America can't possibly retaliate against every regime that violates human rights. How do we decide when to get involved? When should we desist? Unfortunately the answer is usually political as humanitarian concerns are often a cover for power grabs. Even when our intentions are pure, however, the reality remains that we do not have the resources to save everybody. The question then becomes whether or not we have the responsibility to intervene in any situation that does not include our citizens or our national interests. We can take it yet one step further and ask whether we have the right to interfere in any situation that does not directly affect our country or citizens. I, an advocate of old-school non-interventionism, would say we should mind our own business, but I can definitely understand the desire to come to the aid of those who are being persecuted. Who decides whom we help? Let me assure you that it is people with political motives. Millions of people on the Asian and African continents are being persecuted for religious and political reasons, but we have yet to come to their aid. For some reason we only feel the need to interfere in places that are economically advantageous.
4) Violence is always bad, but not always wrong. It is never a good thing when people die in war, regardless of whether the weapons are chemical or conventional, but that doesn't mean that we should never use violence as a means to establishing peace and order. Wisdom is required to know when violence is necessary (which is why electing a president is such an important task), and we must remember that, even when violence is justifiable, it is still tragic.
That's about all I can say on the topic. Frankly, I'm glad not to have the kind of responsibility President Trump has right now. It truly is a lose-lose scenario.
Comments
Post a Comment