I have read countless articles and listened to and watched countless programmes about the crisis in Syria, and I am still no nearer to knowing what is the best course of action. At least the present impasse has forced us to think seriously about the different options but I find it almost impossible to be objective about a situation which has given rise to so much hypocrisy, bitterness and resentment on all sides - not to mention to the misery, horror and bloodshed "on the ground" itself.
It is as though the atrocities perpetrated physically in this conflict and the campaigns of misinformation conducted by both sides have found an echo in the increasingly bitter accusations and recriminations bandied about by their respective sponsors.
I cannot pretend to be immune from such frustration myself and insofar as the Obama camp seems to be getting the worst of the "argument" so far, and in the interests of fair play, I would just like to say that a) the case for doing nothing is not exactly compelling either and b) there seems little point in waiting with bated breath for the UN report, given that the report will pronounce only on whether a chemical attack took place, not on who was responsible for it (for goodness sake!!).
With regard to a) why should a "military solution" from outside be ruled out almost as a matter of principle? This appears to be the attitude of Pope Francis. Was the military solution in Serbia and Kosovo a terrible mistake? Was our decision not to intervene in Darfur and Rwanda such a great success?
It's a terrible thing, but oh so human, that winning an intellectual argument becomes almost more important than trying to stop the bloodshed. It's another terrible thing, but sometimes the only thing to do is to laugh:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/assad-unable-to-convince-putin-that-he-used-chemic,33731/
It is as though the atrocities perpetrated physically in this conflict and the campaigns of misinformation conducted by both sides have found an echo in the increasingly bitter accusations and recriminations bandied about by their respective sponsors.
I cannot pretend to be immune from such frustration myself and insofar as the Obama camp seems to be getting the worst of the "argument" so far, and in the interests of fair play, I would just like to say that a) the case for doing nothing is not exactly compelling either and b) there seems little point in waiting with bated breath for the UN report, given that the report will pronounce only on whether a chemical attack took place, not on who was responsible for it (for goodness sake!!).
With regard to a) why should a "military solution" from outside be ruled out almost as a matter of principle? This appears to be the attitude of Pope Francis. Was the military solution in Serbia and Kosovo a terrible mistake? Was our decision not to intervene in Darfur and Rwanda such a great success?
It's a terrible thing, but oh so human, that winning an intellectual argument becomes almost more important than trying to stop the bloodshed. It's another terrible thing, but sometimes the only thing to do is to laugh:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/assad-unable-to-convince-putin-that-he-used-chemic,33731/
Greetings Barnaby
ReplyDeleteA good post. Though I did not vote for Tony Blair I did support his decision to join the USA attacks on Iraq. However what seems to have been the false basis for Tony Blair's decision has undermined people's support including mine, for any such government action now. A situation like Afghanistan where all the female population are at risk of being subjugated is different and involvement there seems just though sadly perhaps not obviously successful so far.
Syria's tragedies are not Afghanistan-like so I am against being involved though that does not mean that there should not be compassion and cash for the casualties of their wars.
Thanks for your comments, Jerry. I think the fact that so many people (myself included) don't quite know WHAT to think goes some way towards explaining why so many accusations are being flung back and forth.
DeleteHere are 2 links to articles I find interesting:
http://nyti.ms/1dQRgom
http://nyti.ms/15Mb57a
I'm with both of you here.
ReplyDeleteI wobbled on my fence for ages before eventually coming down in a lukewarmish fashion in favour of the attacks on Afghanistan/Iraq, and the "results" have left me disinclined to ever again be "for" any attacks unless I can feel more sure of the positive benefits. And that would never again include oil/big American business, or even being the favourite friend of the President of another country.
With Syria I also do not know WHAT to think, so am inclined to sit firmly on the hawks while we all try to think of some other, humanitarian way of helping with the fall-out.