Part of our problem is that we view anyone who had a WMD used against them as the "victim" and the other person as the bad guy. Our binary calculus doesn't allow for "Sorry some bad stuff happened to you, but we still aren't helping out." Also like I mentioned in an earlier post, we reduce conflicts to a "good guy/ bad guy" equation when they are really just all bad guys.
I think we're also suffering from emotionally-induced amnesia. Muslim extremists have shown a total willingness and dedication to killing innocent civilians. VBIED, vest, IDF strike...the method doesn't matter. You VBIED a market and put that on CNN? Most Americans won't think twice about it, much less read the article, and they for damn sure won't call for a military respone. "Sucks to be you" is probably the most you'll get out of most Americans.
Replace that VBIED with a nerve agent and suddenly everyone wants blood and suddenly everyone assumes that Assad did this. There's no way someone would use a WMD on their own people, right? That's horrific! Sacre bleu cheese!
The West needs to wake up.
Well stated. A large part of the problem with... well, everything... is that peoples' knowledge about certain subjects tends to be, at best, Wikipedia deep. What's worse, people tend to believe that they're a lot more informed than they really are, because they read something on the internet, without bothering to analyze the situation critically or to establish the validity of the information. That causes them to become wedded to a certain position, regardless of information to the contrary.
Too many people look at the fight between Assad, the "ruthless dictator" and the opposition, who of course have to be the "brave rebels." Guys, hate to break it to you, but sometimes the rebels are bad guys, too. What we have in Syria at the moment isn't a clear-cut case of "bad guy vs. good guy," we have "bad guy vs. worse guy." The question is, which side is the "worse guy" as far as US interests are concerned? Is it the Assad government, or is it the rebels? Which side should we back, if we even pick a side? Why isn't "merely monitor the situation for now" a viable course of action for so many Americans?
"But... but... people are dying!" Yes, that's true, and it's terrible. But that is the condition of much of the world. You know what kills more people every year than the
entire war deaths of Syria?
Disease in Africa. So why isn't the world focused on that? Why are the lives of Syrian children worth more to the international community than the lives of African children? Are America's interests best served by stamping out malaria in Africa, for example, or stamping out the Assad regime in Syria? For the record, I don't think it's the US's job to do either, I'm just providing some perspective and some food for thought.
I mentioned the "drowning child" analogy in an earlier post in this thread. I brought it up in class yesterday as part of a discussion with my students about the situation in Syria, and one of them opined, "but it's not just a drowning kid in Syria. It's two kids trying to drown each other. And no matter how many times you pull them out, there are always two more kids ready to jump in. And if you get in the middle of it, they'll try to drown you, too." I thought that was some pretty astute insight.
It looks like we are about to do "something" to Syria over the use of chem weapons. It apparently is going to mostly consist of some missile strikes, maybe in an extreme case a no-fly zone. I don't think we should do that, but I can see why others might logically agree with that course of action. It is important to note the "why," though. If we do anything at all in Syria, it ought to be done in order to secure our interests- whatever they are- instead of to secure the safety of the people of Syria.
I have yet to see anyone make a solid argument as to why we should undertake a large-scale military intervention in Syria which is based on anything other than emotion. Our resources are limited, and our interests are broad. For interventionists, I've seen a lot about the "how" we could go in, I have yet to see a good reason "why," or "what" the results will be and specifically what we stand to gain a nation if we intervene. I think those questions are infinitely more important than the "how."
