Sorry Obama, But I’m Closed-Minded About Syria

Posted: September 8, 2013 in Current Events
Tags: , , , , ,


President Obama is set to make a speech on Tuesday night to convince the American people of the need of military action in Syria in response to a chemical weapons attack in that country.  This probably doesn’t make me a good citizen or whatever, but I do not believe there is anything Obama can say that would convince me that this is the correct course of action.  I am just so solidly in the ‘no more wars’ camp at this point.  And this just bothers me.

  • First, hearing all the discussions about whether or not we should do this or not, the fact that more people WILL die as a result of our attack just never comes up.  And tomahawk missiles just don’t know the difference between responsible parties and innocent people.   The only thing I ever hear is whether or not Americans would be at risk, as if the lives of Syrians are not human or something.   The human costs should be at the forefront of any calculation for an attack, but it doesn’t seem to enter into the equation at all.
  • What does seem to be a major variable in the calculation is some vague notion of “credibility”.  I have even often heard that an attack on Syria would almost certainly not change anything in that country, but we still have to do it to retain “credibility”.  I’m sorry, but I think “credibility” is a stupid reason to kill people.  Also, exactly what happens if we lose “credibility”?  We lose influence?  As near as I can tell, we don’t have any influence to lose in the Middle East, at least not anymore.
  • Speaking of “credibility”, how much “credibility” do WE  have when it comes to so-called “weapons of mass destruction”?  Iraq anyone?  You know what’s a much better way of earning credibility than killing people?  Telling the truth.  Our track record is not good on that front lately.
  • So it seems clear that chemicals were used.  But did the al-Assad regime do it?  Or was it the rebel opposition?  Now, not everyone acts rationally.  But it probably makes more sense for the rebel opposition to try to coax American involvement than it does for al-Assad to risk it unless he was desperate.  It doesn’t appear that he should be that desperate yet.
  • The rebel opposition are not ‘good guys’.  In fact, al-Qaeda is involved with some of the rebel factions.  I just don’t think the saying ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ can possibly apply to al-Qaeda.
  • So chemical weapons are awful, but this has been a human tragedy even before their use.  Over 100,000 dead along with over a million fleeing the country.  Is the message we are sending here is that it’s okay to commit atrocities against people as long as you do it the “right” way?
  • Obama has also said that action would be “limited”.  But how can he promise that?  Either our actions have a point, in which case that action must continue until that point is achieved, or there is no point, in which case we are pointlessly killing people.

So no, there’s nothing Obama could say on Tuesday that’s going to change my mind.  Further, until we learn that problems are not solved by killing people, and killing people is not solved by killing even more people, there is no hope for peace on earth.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s