We invaded Iraq base on lies and propaganda and Iraq based on anger and the desire for revenge. At least our foray into Afghanistan resulted in the killing of Osama bin-Laden; our misadventure in Iraq did little more than send 4804 young Americans home in flag-draped caskets. My point is that our government has used the American military to project its foreign policy in the Middle East, so you’d think that a legitimate political/humanitarian crisis would garner a similar response…right?? Or not.
Syria, at least from a humanitarian standpoint, seems to be a country crying out for intervention. The Syrian government continues to indiscriminately murder its citizens, including children, in order to maintain the rule of not-so-benevolent dictator Bashar Assad, who’s proving to be an even more accomplished butcher than his late father, Hafez Assad, ever was. Meanwhile, the American government’s response to the savagery has been limited to limp, ineffectual expressions of “absolute disgust” (You tell ‘em, America!). It seems as if every day dawns with a new report of atrocities inflicted by the Syrian government upon its people.
And we fiddle while Rome burns….
I’m not advocating for the use of American military might to solve all of the world’s problems, but if ever something cried out for intervention, it’s the crisis in Syria. (Full disclosure: I’ve traveled in Syria, and I love the country. I’m not exactly a disinterested observer.) What was the UN created for if not to intervene in situations where a brutal dictator is murdering citizens in order that they might maintain their grip on power?
Perhaps if we could find a way to convince the American government that oil was involved, eh? Meanwhile, innocent Syrians continue to die at the hand of their government while the world stands idly by an impotently tsk-tsks their displeasure over the “situation,” as if the deaths of civilians was an abstract concept.