War & Peace: Thoughts on Syria

While the majority of social media posts have been (and still seem to be) in response to Miley’s ability to twerk it on national television, my mind has been elsewhere (in Syria to be exact).

When I was younger, I always wondered what it would be like to live through the famous world wars. I constantly asked my Mom-Mom what her life was like, how they dealt with the war (apparently she and her siblings chewed on tar to wear off hunger), and if the textbooks told the real story. Today, I found myself constantly tapping my left foot, refreshing my web browser every 5 minutes, and wondering if we are about to start a new chapter of world war history.

I’ve got contradicting thoughts on Syria and I want to explore them with you; so let’s start with the beginning. In brief, Syrian rebels have been fighting their current President’s (Bashar al-Asad) regime since 2011. That's approximately (give or take your sources) two years ago. Two. (I could make a list of countries who are currently fighting with their own people, for how long they've been going at it, and how bloody it was or still is, but let’s stick to the subject of Syria).

Working as an editor, I’m careful not to believe everything I read. That’s just part of the job; you have to do background checks on sources and citations to make sure everything lines up with what’s being announced. My government claims they have proof that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against their own people. Despite this and in response to their citizens' reactions, the UK and Germany have both pulled out of agreements to use direct military involvement, and of course, Russia has blatantly refused to do anything. Our history with Russia reminds me of one of those covered water slides: dark, twisting, and long. I think this has something to do with the whispers of World War III in my head. Maybe I'm overreacting and the media has hyped it all up to be more than it is (like with North Korea and the talks of their alleged nuclear missiles) a few months ago. Who the hell really knows though, we're all kept in the dark nowadays.

Anyways, today both Kerry and Obama spoke out against al-Asad. In this CNN article, President Obama is quoted as having stated, “It’s important for us to recognize that when 1,000 people are killed, including hundreds of innocent children, through the use of a weapon that 98 or 99 percent of humanity says should not be used even in war, and there is no action, then we’re sending a signal that that international norm doesn’t mean much.” I agree with this part of his statement but I still wonder why we, as an international community, continue to create and possess nuclear and chemical weapons if 98 or 99 percent of people are opposed to it. I fully comprehend that not every country possesses these horrific man-made creations, but if one country abides by the rules, shouldn't everyone?

No, chemical weapons are not good. Using them is an easy way out and certainly not a just way to fight. Yet, these weapons are available. Do we honestly think that saying, "Hey this isn't good, you shouldn't do that!" will stop someone from doing it? It's like telling a four-year-old to stop climbing up the slide, and just go down on their bottom like they're supposed to. They aren't going to listen. They won't understand until they slip, fall, and get bloody hands and knees. You can't really force those kinds of lessons.

On the other hand, what eerily reminds me of the past (and my not so favorite President), is this statement made by our current President: “And that is a danger to our national security." How does it go from international to national? Can someone please explain the logic behind this? If we don't intervene, does that really allow other countries to so suddenly have the upper hand in handing out weapons, money, and military training? 

This whole notion of protecting one's national security really gets me riled up, especially since I think we've come so far away from its original meaning when we started off as a country. It also reminds me of a book I finished earlier this year, entitled A Woman Among Warlords. I've pulled the following two quotations from the beginning and the end of the book. I think we, as a nation and as an international community, should really digest these words before making any sort of decision:

“As I never tire of telling my audiences, no nation can donate liberation to another nation. These values must be fought for and won by the people themselves. They can only grow and flourish when they are planted by the people in their own soil and watered by their own blood and tears” (5).

“All told, according to Professor Marc W. Herold of the University of New Hampshire, at least seven thousand civilians have been killed by U.S./NATO forces since the invasion of Afghanistan….Herold sums up the predictable impact of these bombings in Afghanistan: ‘In effect, the US/NATO forces are relying upon air power in lieu of ground forces and in so doing causing high levels of civilian casualties which, in turn, push locals towards the resistance. This is particularly important in Afghanistan where the culture of revenge has long stalked Americans there. U.S/NATO aerial attacks turn friends into enemies'” (157).

This is their civil war. This is a fight between their people. Yet, there’s the issue of chemical weapons and so we consider intervening to teach them a lesson, to scold them for crossing the red line. What is our lesson? Don't kill your own people? Don't mess with the international rules set in place by some of the most powerful countries in the world? I’m not really sure whose side to believe anymore. Officials claim that it would be unjust and unfair to turn the other way when we have such solid proof. Yet, what does the world do in reaction to our constant drone attacks on Yemen?  

Let me take a breather for a second. 

So when I was teaching in France, I had a lovely but quite student in one of my 4th grade classes who was from Syria. She wore jumpsuits with her country’s flag like a lot of my other students (who hailed from Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, the Congo, and the like). She was so eager to learn English and came to my afterschool club once a week.

This whole week I’ve been having trouble falling asleep. I sit in bed and wonder what’s happening to her family who still lives over there. Have they already been killed? Are they leaving their country to live as refugees in Lebanon or Jordan? Or have they been living as refugees since the break of war? Did they try to come to France too? What is life really like over there and who does anyone trust anymore?

The U.S. once fought a civil war. There wasn’t any sort of chemical weapon involved, but it was bloody and confusing and a major turning point in our history. While I want a happy ending, I’m not sure when or how or if that will occur for Syria. What I do know and believe is that the U.S. does not always have to be a hero to be appreciated and highly regarded by the international community. We may be powerful, but that does not give us the right to just jump into a fight whenever we deem necessary. I think it's highly contradictory for us to scold Syria yet brush the fact that we too committed a heinous act (by bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki) under the rug. We may be a very powerful country, but let us also keep in mind that it takes a very long time to regain trust, even with our own allies.

With that all being said, I ask you to join me on a quick ride on the peace train.

Good night and good luck,

Petite pamplemousse