Syrian Conflict – an opinion
Francis O’Neill 29/08/2013
Surely it is true that war should always be a last resort between nations. A civil war is clearly a hell of a lot worse, dividing brother against brother and sister against sister.
If we saw two brothers knocking six bells out of each other we might want to intervene, but should it be to make sure they fight fairly or to take sides with one or the other?
I think rather it should be to encourage them to stop fighting and find another way to resolve their differences. It would be proper not to take sides with either – rather in this scenario to look to other family members to intervene to help resolve the matter peacefully.
Rather than action against Syria maybe we can continue along the road to peace through diplomacy and humanitarian support, without prejudice – and follow UN’s Ban Ki-Moon’s lead, ‘Diplomacy should be given a chance and peace given a chance.’
I sense a far bigger concern on the horizon in that, if we don’t handle this correctly, Syria could be the spark to ignite a much bigger conflict.
We really need to learn from our recent past and open our eyes! As Ghandi said:
An eye for an eye only leaves the whole world blind.
It couldn’t be clearer…
Comments sent in by a colleague:
03/09/13 Ed note. I decided to add this comment from a colleague here for their insight into this difficult and testing situation for Syria, for western (mainly US) involvement – and for that matter the global implications. In his comments cyber warfare rears its head. I gave warning shots in the Astrology and global unrest article which I placed on this website over a year ago, regarding the likely increasing use of this during the times we are in. I for one am glad that the UK government have decided not to take a second vote on this matter – for now at least.
Francis… Assuming confirmation of Assad’s use of chemical weapons [ill-advisedly touted in WWI as a wondrously humane method for warfare} against his country’s citizenry – be they rebels-in-arms or civilians – some manner of punitive international response seems necessary, with the need for immediate response[s] being now irrelevant, but timely response[s] critical.
Both tactically and strategically I consider Obama’s decision to take a procedural, consultational approach in the houses of Congress as both politically prudent and Constitutionally appropriate, and like the UK, let the democratic process for better or worse take its course.
The Med’s eastern shore will continue to face religious, ethnic, social, economic, etc issues [as will the rest of the planet] until the practical approach finally embraced by a consummate mid-20th century terrorist name of Moshe Dayan [read this item] is embraced by the region’s inhabitants that since you can’t kill all of your adversaries you’ve got to deal with them in good faith. I would think making Jerusalem a truly international “holy” city would be a solid start, etc ….
Militarily in Syria, a substantial intervention resulting in a de facto occupation besides being foolish and costly in blood … would be counter-productive on a spectrum of levels, one of the unapplied lessons of Iraq being the need to devise/employ a well-baksheeshed second tier of coalitioned, existing military and rebels, players with, in this case, given the past 100 years of mandate spheres, the French as the facilitators – perfect world – no chance to restart the nurture of quasi-democraticly-orientated special interest groups – possibly, over a muddled 15 year process that will not be pretty or necessarily harmonious with Western precepts, but offers limited exposures.
As to the initial pending US/UN strikes, the modi initially will be targeted “surgical” cruise missile/drone operations, with some multinational advisers to follow who will tend to play by middle eastern rules.
Will the Russians join? …Putin may in the face of chemistry grab for statemanship and fire a token missile or three to reinforce Assad’s removal as part of an internationally UN-sactioned effort. The real international worry now, as the ex-KBG pragmatist well appreciates, being last week’s “Syria Electronic Army” cyber attack, with the real and apparent ramifications attendant as to what constitutes 21st century threats to national/international security be it for the US, the European Union, Russia, China, etc.
The stakes have been demonstrably raised, with the ever-evolving contemporary, trans-national technological networks and reality at risk – such that global stability will make for interesting bed fellows as events are escalating the rule sets through a hierarchy of changes as the targets shift from the genitals to the jugular…
So, re: Syria – a localized experiment at new methods of societal policing, re: global security – a probable sad step backwards for human rights as cyber security increases the many and varied homelands’ scrutinization of the WWW that we are now addicted to. If we are collectively lucky the States’ albeit imperfect NSA’s attempted juggling of national interest/citizens’ rights will at least set a tone for the nominal parameters of citizen surveillance in a world were key strokes will impact millions versus molecules that affect hundreds or thousands…
As with all generations, we do verily live in interesting times… Cheers!
You can follow the Syrian Conflict debate on 38 Degrees…
The situation is complicated, and 38 Degrees members are expressing a variety of different views. At moments like this, one of the strengths of our community is that we can share our thoughts and discuss things together.
If you have a Facebook account, you can post links to useful articles, see other people’s suggestions, and join in the conversation here:
To join the conversation on our website, please click here: