Syrian
Rebels Don't Want America's “Neutral” Bombings (updated 9/4/13)
Obama says that his attacks will be in
opposition to the Syrian government's use of gas weapons, but will
not be pro-Assad or pro-rebels. Here is what the Koran has to say
about actions such as that:
“I know your works:
you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot!
So, because you are lukewarm, I will spew you out of my mouth.” -- Qur'an 41.51.
So, because you are lukewarm, I will spew you out of my mouth.” -- Qur'an 41.51.
Syrians don't trust our government
in general, and they don't trust Obama in particular. They feel
that he has sided with Israel over Arab nations in the past,
including Syria, and continues to do so. During his campaign in
2008, Obama made promises that brought Syrians hope. He called for
new policies in dealing with the Middle East. However, he readily
backed down from his earlier demands for an end to increased Israeli
settlements on Palestinian land Instead of bringing the two sides
together, he drove an even bigger wedge between them, and made
himself a person whose word cannot be trusted. They now see him as
someone who says what appeals to people, but actually acts based upon
what his advisors tell him to do.
Syrians probably scoffed when
Obama said in a recent speech that America has a "moral
responsibility" to punish the Syrian government or military for
gas weapons against civilians, which has caused somewhere between
1,000 and 1,800 deaths, depending upon the source. Where was our
“moral responsibility” when Assad forces killed more than 100,000
people, leaving more than six million Syrians homeless, and more than
two million refugees fleeing for their lives? In essence, they see
America's message to the Syrian regime as, “It is okay to massacre
hundreds of thousands of civilians by ground attack, air attack, and
Scud missiles, just as long as you don't use gas on the population.
What kind of stand is that?
Obama also accused Assad as being in
violation of “international norms” as a basis for his
bombing. What kind of contorted justification is this? Norms are
nothing more than expected modes of behavior based upon prior actions
or agreements. They have no legal status. And, even it they did,
who gave us the right to police international norms, and take action
whenever a country deviates from them, as perceived by us?
And, what if we don't bomb Syria
after the Obama-defined red line has been crossed? Our government
seems to be afraid that we will be viewed as being weak in the eyes
of the rest of the world, solely on the basis of not following up on
the threats of its ill-advised leader. Who cares about appearances,
when it comes to saving lives? The rest of the world certainly knows
that we still have the biggest and most powerful armaments in the
entire world which is a lot more than people's opinions. Besides,
if our government were truly interested in our image, we would never
have invade Iraq – probably the greatest military blunder in this
country's history. If we came clean with an admission that the red
line was a mistake, I think the world would view us in a much better
light than following through with a violent reaction.
So, what should we do? Very
simply, we should openly support the rebels in any way possible,
short of any direct military involvement. If our government is so
concerned about our global image,
that would probably greatly improve our
image in the eyes of the rebels and other nations throughout the
world (except Russia). This could, and probably should, be our
response to the Assad' regime's use of gas (if they really did),
rather than promising more bloodshed and tears for the Syrian people.
If we do intervene with bombs, then Russia might feel it's “moral
responsibility” is to defend Syria by attacking our country in
return, and then where would we be – the beginning of the Third
World War?
An
Alternative Action. If our country's leaders believe that
a show of force is truly necessary, why sacrifice human lives to
prove that point? Why not pick some isolated targets away from any
cities or otherwise populated areas and annihilate them? That could
be interpreted as a warning shot across the bow of a ship. It should
be adequate warning to Assad and his supporters that we mean
business. If they are blind to these implications and continuing to
conduct business as usual, then we could supply the rebels with the
means not just to counter the Assad regime, but to overthrow it.