Friday, September 6, 2013

I.I.W.K.O.T.W.

Jess: Here we are again, writing about something that is way more complicated than we probably understand, but it’s relevant and needs to be discussed.


Syria. One of those countries that a whole lot of Americans probably never heard of before the last few weeks. Now it’s all over the news. Admittedly, Wes and I don’t get the newspaper or watch the news, but we do keep up with things online. Honestly, I prefer the way things are presented online, and it’s easier to catch up on while I’m feeding James. 
Anyway, if you’re unsure of anything we’re talking about, go here. There are several links after the article that can give you even more information on Syria and the current situation.


I don’t like war. I don’t like knowing that there is war going on in countries all over the world as I’m writing this. I don’t like the idea of people killing other people. I don’t like that they do it to make a point, to punish someone, to get their way, or even out of seemingly protecting others. I really don’t like the idea that there are people who truly enjoy doing so. As someone who wants to believe that people have the capacity for good, it is very difficult for me to know that there are individuals and groups who will kills thousands of people just to get their way. 

For me, war seems like a macrocosm of a fight between two children. Each side knows what they want, and maybe they even tried to explain it rationally at some point. Eventually, however, they are just throwing things, calling names, taking what was not theirs to begin with, and justifying it all by thinking that the other person started the whole mess. No one is innocent in war. Rarely is anyone completely justified. And yet it seems to be a perpetual part of the human condition. 
I heard about President Obama’s leaning toward military action and immediately rejected the idea. Although military action seems to be unceasing in the US, we still think that we are called to be the worlds’ police force. And yet Martin Luther says that there is a time and place to take action on behalf of your brother or sister, even when it is inappropriate to take action on one’s own account. How do we know what is the right time? How do we know what is the right force? Even for someone who hates war, I kind of understand the idea of sending some missiles into hopefully unoccupied areas in retaliation for Assad using chemical weapons. But how do we know that these places will be empty? How do we know they won’t be full of something that will destroy people, animals, and land for miles? How do we know Assad won’t retaliate?


At some point, we have to say “enough!” We are called to care for the other, for the earth and all created things. We have done a terrible job of that, but this just shows our broken nature. I don’t have the answer to this, but I will continue praying for Syrians, our president, and other leaders around the world as yet another part of God’s creation is destroyed by human hands. 

Wes: Once again we find ourselves talking about something that we cannot solve. I don't know about y'all, but I often find myself daydreaming about "if I were king of the world." If I were king of the world, things would be a lot different. Healthcare would be completely funded by the government as a means of eradicating disease. I.I.W.K.O.T.W., education would be as well: as long as the student was maintaining a certain level of achievement, each person could earn up to a doctorate in whatever field they chose. That way, I.I.W.K.O.T.W., jobs would be secured based on an individual's merit and level of comprehension, not based on how much money they had or could obtain. I.I.W.K.O.T.W., everybody (even myself) would be by law expected to know or learn at least three languages.


And I.I.W.K.O.T.W., there would be no war. 


If all of that sounds good, someone should start working on installing me. I have a few other ideas as well. 


But Syria. 


Man it sucks, knowing that around the world, there are people killing other people. There are days when I cannot fathom this. It does not compute with my life experience (thanks be to God), and I just don't understand it. Other days, it seems to be almost common--as if I'm desensitized from it. Of course it happens; it's a fact of life. 


And with Syria, I gotta tell you, the more I read about it, the more and more I worry about how it will finally end. That first Washington Post article that Jess hyperlinked talks about Russia and Iran's part in all of this: that's scary! The idea that two countries have a stake in allowing this civil war to continue because of arms trade and bad feelings toward surrounding countries is ridiculous. Now China has stood up and said they will have no part in it, the UK has taken a hands-off stance, and everyone else is either joining them or staying quiet. 


Now, part of me says that even if everyone else turns their back on injustice, that doesn't mean we do the same. People are dying, and their government is supposedly (since it was never confirmed) using world-banned weapons. Someone needs to do something. 


But all of me shouts that trying to quell violence with more violence doesn't work, that escalation is not the answer. Not now. Not ever. 


My dad was sent overseas for three different tours of duty: two to Iraq and one to Afghanistan. When it comes to government and the military, he is my personal go-to information person. We don't always agree on everything, but I value his thoughts and opinions more than any other on these sorts of topics. When I asked him what he would do with this conflict if he were king of the world, he said he'd take out Bashar al-Assad. No bombs. No civilian casualties. Just one strike team to go in and clean up this mess. 


Maybe that's the answer. I don't know. All I know is that I have been called to take the hard line on issues like this and preach peace. No exceptions. No rationalizing. Peace. Non-violent, self-sacrificing, even. In cases like this, maybe that means the U.S. showing its muscle by brow-beating everyone into a world-wide trade embargo against the Syrian government until al-Assad steps down. But you know, even that would most likely meant not only continued bloodshed for the foreseeable future, but also starvation and death due to lack of resources as well.


Which would mean, as always, the people who are going to lose the most in this war are the truly innocent, on neither the side of the government nor the rebels. The people who are going to lose the most are the least of these, those very people to whom Christ called us to minister. 


Damn. This is hard. If only I were king of the world...

3 comments:

  1. Syria: The Very Basics - http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/syria-the-very-very-basics/2013/08/29/acbb508e-10c3-11e3-a2b3-5e107edf9897_blog.html?wprss=rss_ezra-klein

    The idea of the strike would be to hit the chemical weapons stockpiles which would be on military bases and not in towns, cities, or other occupied areas so any deaths resulting from a missile strike are unlikely to have civilian casualties. I take this with a grain of salt because there is some speculation in it and is essentially arguing "you can't disprove an unknown" but The Hill (a very reputable D.C. paper) has said Assad is moving prisoners to the bases that are likely to be hit if we attack. (http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/319643-report-assad-moving-human-shields-to-possible-target-sites-in-syria)

    One of the biggest drawbacks to a missile strike from a U.S. standpoint is the "Pottery Barn Rule" (You bomb it, you own it) since that is a major reason we stayed in Iraq for so long and are still in Afghanistan.

    The U.S. and the E.U. already have an embargo against Syria. Embargo's don't really tend to do much unfortunately. There was an embargo against S. Africa put in place by the U.N. to punish it for the apartheid. That was put in place in 1987 and, as we all know, the apartheid continued until 1994. Seven years. The U.S. and what is now the E.U. have had an embargo in place against China ever since Tiananmen Square in 1989. Iran has been under an embargo by the U.S. and out international allies since 1979. North Korea has been under an embargo by the U.N., U.S., and the E.U. since 2006. And of course let's not forget the wildly successful embargo the U.S. has against Cuba since 1960 that all these decades later that has yet to accomplish whatever its intended purpose was.

    It's a bad situation. The selling of the war is reminiscent of the selling of the Iraq war so far but the conflict in question is more similar to Kosovo. A covert strike to take out Assad sounds good in theory but the U.S. has said it won't make regime change in Syria one of our policies. McCain said the only way he would vote for action now after almost 3 years of haranguing Obama about doing nothing is if regime change is our policy. Besides, U.S./CIA backed regime changes usually don't work out the way we want. We already tried it in Syria back in 1949. We tried it in Iran in 1953, Cuba (Bay of Pigs anyone?), Afghanistan in 1979 (which in no way came back to bite us in the ass 30 years later), Cambodia in the 1980's, Nicaragua in 1981 (Iran-Contra). Without regime change taking out Assad makes no sense and with regime change we have a terrible track record.

    One thing the U.S. could do if we really want to help is let more people into the country. The U.S. agreed to let in 2,000 refugees but so far no one has made it through the application process. Even if all 2,000 slots are filled an estimated 2 million people have been displaced because of the conflict. It could also give more aid to the refugee camps.

    Wes, a good phrase for you is "de-escalation through military force"

    ReplyDelete
  2. Here's something from The Guardian yesterday that complicates things further: German surveillance says that soldiers might have just used chemical weapons without ever being ordered to do so by Assad making him not personally involved.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/08/syria-chemical-weapons-not-assad-bild

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dylan, I love that you're the only one who reads/comments on our blog. Seriously. It makes me miss you.

    I really like your point about allowing in more refugees. That's a wonderful way that we could help do something good in the midst of all the badness.

    My point in this, as I probably could have been a little clearer in saying, is that I don't know that I believe that there is a right thing to do in this situation. It sucks, but people are going to die either way, and that's not right or fair or just. I don't think that bombing is the issue, especially when Assad has threatened to move all key military personnel and assets into heavily populated civilian areas. But I know that doing nothing is wrong as well.

    There's no magical solution, no happy medium that I can see.

    And I hate that.

    ReplyDelete