One of the problems that I’ve noticed these last couple of weeks and particularly the last couple of days as regards Syria’s attack on its own citizens (supposedly, anyway) is a total lack of information about who was being attacked. This seems to me a crucial lack.
We are dealing, it seems to me, with a number of players who were not as they seem. My feeling is that our sense of humanity is being manipulated here as it has so often been in the past.
* Remember, the United States government was all for Morsi in Egypt, despite the early reports that he was seriously tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. what’s called is what it is we removed Hosni Mubarak from power and ultimately put into his place someone who was an enemy of both peace and western interests. Certainly, an enemy of Israel… Morsi.
*Back in the days of Carter, and his outright abysmal foreign policy, were told repeatedly of abuses by the Shah of Iran, and yet, look what he got replaced with, once the Mullahs had their way. Can anyone now honestly say that the removal of the Shah resulted in the end, in a more peaceful world?
In the light of those events, and many more which could be named in the region, and outside it, I can’t help but wonder if the chemical attacks currently being reported in Syria, weren’t on Islamic extremists. It would certainly be one reason we’ve not seen any evidence on the point.
Certainly, the argument can be made that most of the movements to overthrow standing governments in the Middle East are backed by Islamic extremists, such as the Mullahs in Iran. I can’t recall is this is written as to whether or not Iran has a history of trying to overthrow Assad, but I’m willing to bet they have.
As I’ve said previously, the Middle East as a region filled with a ruthless people who are willing to commit all kinds of atrocities in the name of Islam. If and I say again, if, what we have here is ruthlessness responding to ruthlessness in order to preserve the larger peace in the region and in fact the world, I can’t help but wonder if taking out Assad is genuinely in the interests of that peace. If it’s true, by take is that Assad being in power is in the interests of peace.
And yes, I’m quite aware of the cries about human rights, war crimes, etc.. I’m not blind to that aspect of it. I’m quite sure Assad is not what we would call a “White Hat”.
But still…. even with that in mind, is it logical to operate in a vacuum as regards the larger picture here? Giving Islamic extremists a toehold under the guise of human rights etc., seems to me counterproductive to that end. We are dealing with a group of people who do not think as we do. Golda Meir knew this difference well, when she said…
“We will have peace with the Arabs when they love their children more than they hate us”
We still see Arab children being sent to their deaths, and other unspeakable atrocities to support an extremist Islam. Are we really sure that’s not what we’re dealing with here? Are we sure that’s not what Assad is trying to fight off?
The word “decide” has a root word meaning “to kill”. I suggest that when decisions are made, opportunities die. As regards Syria and seeking to overthrow it’s government for our perception of human rights, We should be careful what we kill.