Entry 1569, on 2013-09-05 at 22:32:38 (Rating 4, Politics)
The big international news story at this time involves the situation in Syria and what should be done about it. I have avoided commenting for a while because, to be quite honest, I didn't really know that much about the background to the whole thing. But in the last week or two I have heard several opinions and am now ready to comment. So here are my thoughts...
The main question is this: should the US be intervening in the affairs of a country with a completely different culture and one which they have little connection with normally. If military action proceeds it would be the ninth direct military intervention in an Arab or Muslim country in the last 15 years.
Is the Middle East a better place after previous western interventions? Really that depends on your perspectives but at the very least I would say there is no clear and overwhelming case to say that things are better. If there is either no improvement or only a marginal one does that make the cost (in economic and humanitarian terms) worthwhile? I don't think so. Given the huge cost in money and lives I think any action should produce clear benefits.
What many people also forget is that the rebel forces aren't exactly free from possible moral problems themselves. There are elements of al Qaeda involved and there have been suspected shipments of nerve gas which are thought to have been destined for the rebel's use. Does this sound like a case of throwing out one ruthless regime to have it replaced by an even worse one?
And if the rebels are suspected of having the same chemical weapon shipped to them that has been used on civilians does that not increase the level of evidence needed to be sure that the government forces really were responsible for the chemical attack?
To be clear, I think it was the government forces who were guilty of this horrible crime, but just thinking something is not sufficient to launch a military attack. The US needs to be very sure of this, especially when we consider their total failure to provide any real evidence of the bad behaviour they have accused others of in the past (the non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in particular).
But let's proceed on the rather doubtful assumptions that the government forces were to blame and that military action in Syria might result in an improved situation for the citizens of that country. Who has the legal, moral, or practical right to impose a "punishment" on the Syrian regime?
Not the Americans that's for sure!
Which country has been responsible for the death of at least 180 children from drone strikes alone? Which country killed tens of thousands of civilians with illegal bombing raids in Iraq? Which country used the most heinous tactics in Viet Nam, including dropping napalm on villages full of civilians and indiscriminately spraying agent orange over vast areas of the country? Which country used people as test subjects to assess the effectiveness of nuclear weapons?
That's right, it was the Americans in every case and I'm sure I could make a much longer list of the atrocities perpetrated by various American regimes over the years.
So clearly they have no right to act as the great moral arbiters of the world. But what about any possible legal right?
According to most commentators it is necessary to have ratification from the UN to take military action against another state unless your own country is threatened. I don't think there is any real threat to the US here despite some feeble attempts at making that connection. And even if the UN is slow and bureaucratic that doesn't make ignoring it and launching an attack any more legal.
So the US has no legal right to carry out the attack either, but what about the final possible justification: a practical right? In other words, is it just the best thing to do in these circumstances despite the moral and legal difficulties?
Well that is a bit less clear because Obama hasn't told us exactly what form these strikes might take. But whatever form was chosen there would be inevitable civilian casualties. And there is the question of the eventual outcome. Either the Assad regime survives and possibly goes on to commit even more brutal acts in retaliation, or it is toppled and a probably even more extreme, fundamentalist, unstable group takes over.
So surely even from a practical perspective this is a poor option.
But the question then becomes: is it OK to sit around and do nothing while innocent civilians are killed in such a vicious and intolerable way? Clearly it would be good to do whatever is possible to discourage this sort of behaviour, but several factors need to be considered.
More example, is it be OK to punish the government of another country which has killed civilians by attacking them and most likely killing more innocents? And is it OK to attack one group which has committed atrocities while ignoring very similar situations in similar countries. And is it OK to claim the moral right to attack a group when you have been responsible for the death of far more people yourself?
Most people would answer "no" to these questions and so should the American administration and its supporters. They should at least wait for support from the UN. Then the attack would be legal... but it will never be moral.
There are no comments for this entry.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE