Why the U.S. Government Will Attack Syria
The U.S. government will attack Syria because the Syrians used chemical weapons on their own people. When you read that last sentence, ask yourself whether it makes sense. It doesn't to me. For one thing, it's too vague. To start getting more specific, we might ask ourselves what we mean by "Syria."
The country is engaged in a civil war. So that which we call Syria is divided into (at least) two factions: one supporting the government of Assad, one opposing. I think we all know that the U.S. government will attack the side that supports the government of Assad. But who or what will they attack?
Well, the chatter in the media tells us that the U.S. military will primarily use Tomahawk cruise missiles, fired from Navy warships already positioned in the Mediterranean near Syria. Will they use airplanes too? They almost assuredly will not send in ground troops - at least not now.
We will be led to believe that such an attack will be "surgical" which means nothing more than that the missiles fired will be programmed to hit specific physical targets inside Syria. What those are, we don't know. Will they only consist of Assad government property which may also house officials of the Assad government? Isn't that the impression you somehow get when the term "surgical" is used - that somehow innocents people will not be killed, or at least that the number of innocent people will be held to a minimum. But is that what really happens? Is our military technology that capable of avoiding the death of innocents with these surgical strikes? If it is not, can the killing of more innocents with these missiles in retaliation for the killing of innocents with chemical weapons be justified?
Will these attacks topple the Syrian government of Assad? Is that part of the plan? It doesn't sound like it is. It's said the U.S. government will "punish" the government of Syria for using chemical weapons on its own citizens. But punishment isn't intending to overthrow the government. So the government will presumably remain intact.
The purpose of making these observations and asking these questions is to stimulate critical thought about exactly what's going on here. We certainly get none of this in the vast array of media reports being lobbed at us now. All we get now are comments about what factions in the U.S. government now support the President in his desire to attack Syria.
So with these few observations and questions now on the table, what answer do we get to the question of why the U.S. government will attack Syria. Is the answer "to punish Syria" a reasonable answer in any way? What will such "punishment" accomplish?
And if such punishment comes without proof of culpability, can there be any justice in this? Never mind whether the U.S. government has any standing as an enforcer of international justice. Assuming it does have such standing, has any reasonable effort been made to establish who is responsible, specifically that it was the Assad government that used chemical weapons on their own citizens? Reports last week were that the government had such evidence that it could make its case against the Assad government. Where is it? Will the government claim it is being provided to member of Congress who are about to vote on whether to support the President's decision to attack? Why should such evidence be provided "secretly" to Congress?
If Assad's government isn't toppled and replaced by a government that will act in a more just manner, what will be accomplished here?
I realize that these sorts of observations and questions can seem niggling and irrelevant. But when you look at them, they're just simple reason and common sense being applied to the information that's being fed to us by the media. Has the world reached a point where such observations and questioning based on reason and common sense is niggling and irrelevant?
If you don't like these questions, I'd encourage you to at least ask your own questions, based on your own personal observations. You do have questions, don't you?
I've read that many Americans oppose this planned attack. Do you? If so, why? It's important that you have a reason that you oppose the attack. While it's important to know that (if true) many do oppose these attacks, I should hope those who oppose have thought about why they do, and are not just reacting based upon their feelings here. It's really important that the exercise of reason and common sense rule over feelings. Your feeling can be swayed one way or the other in the heat of the moment. Your reason and common sense, on the other hand, will stand solid as a rock, if you only take the time to thing all this through.
For me, so much appears wrong about this attack when I take the time to think about it.
The country is engaged in a civil war. So that which we call Syria is divided into (at least) two factions: one supporting the government of Assad, one opposing. I think we all know that the U.S. government will attack the side that supports the government of Assad. But who or what will they attack?
Well, the chatter in the media tells us that the U.S. military will primarily use Tomahawk cruise missiles, fired from Navy warships already positioned in the Mediterranean near Syria. Will they use airplanes too? They almost assuredly will not send in ground troops - at least not now.
We will be led to believe that such an attack will be "surgical" which means nothing more than that the missiles fired will be programmed to hit specific physical targets inside Syria. What those are, we don't know. Will they only consist of Assad government property which may also house officials of the Assad government? Isn't that the impression you somehow get when the term "surgical" is used - that somehow innocents people will not be killed, or at least that the number of innocent people will be held to a minimum. But is that what really happens? Is our military technology that capable of avoiding the death of innocents with these surgical strikes? If it is not, can the killing of more innocents with these missiles in retaliation for the killing of innocents with chemical weapons be justified?
Will these attacks topple the Syrian government of Assad? Is that part of the plan? It doesn't sound like it is. It's said the U.S. government will "punish" the government of Syria for using chemical weapons on its own citizens. But punishment isn't intending to overthrow the government. So the government will presumably remain intact.
The purpose of making these observations and asking these questions is to stimulate critical thought about exactly what's going on here. We certainly get none of this in the vast array of media reports being lobbed at us now. All we get now are comments about what factions in the U.S. government now support the President in his desire to attack Syria.
So with these few observations and questions now on the table, what answer do we get to the question of why the U.S. government will attack Syria. Is the answer "to punish Syria" a reasonable answer in any way? What will such "punishment" accomplish?
And if such punishment comes without proof of culpability, can there be any justice in this? Never mind whether the U.S. government has any standing as an enforcer of international justice. Assuming it does have such standing, has any reasonable effort been made to establish who is responsible, specifically that it was the Assad government that used chemical weapons on their own citizens? Reports last week were that the government had such evidence that it could make its case against the Assad government. Where is it? Will the government claim it is being provided to member of Congress who are about to vote on whether to support the President's decision to attack? Why should such evidence be provided "secretly" to Congress?
If Assad's government isn't toppled and replaced by a government that will act in a more just manner, what will be accomplished here?
I realize that these sorts of observations and questions can seem niggling and irrelevant. But when you look at them, they're just simple reason and common sense being applied to the information that's being fed to us by the media. Has the world reached a point where such observations and questioning based on reason and common sense is niggling and irrelevant?
If you don't like these questions, I'd encourage you to at least ask your own questions, based on your own personal observations. You do have questions, don't you?
I've read that many Americans oppose this planned attack. Do you? If so, why? It's important that you have a reason that you oppose the attack. While it's important to know that (if true) many do oppose these attacks, I should hope those who oppose have thought about why they do, and are not just reacting based upon their feelings here. It's really important that the exercise of reason and common sense rule over feelings. Your feeling can be swayed one way or the other in the heat of the moment. Your reason and common sense, on the other hand, will stand solid as a rock, if you only take the time to thing all this through.
For me, so much appears wrong about this attack when I take the time to think about it.
Comments