The ugly civil war in Syria is already being influenced by outside forces: Iran and Russia, to name just two. Normally, the U.S. runs guns to wars. Now, there’s dangerous talk of engaging our military to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
This is a tough issue for me. I hate what Assad has been doing to his people, and I think he might be crazy. What does he expect to emerge from this war? Even if he wins, he’ll rule a demolished nation. Needless to say, governments ought to protect and support their people—not kill them for the sake of perpetuating its power.
At the same time, I don’t believe it’d be wise to enter a war with Syria. It’s painful to say. A part of me really wants to help these people, but a more rational side of me disagrees. Dropping bombs and proliferating weapons won’t help the Syrians in the end. It’d seem like a good thing in the short term, yet the far-reaching implications negate that.
If Assad truly bombarded the populace with chemical weapons, then I have to admit I wish he’d die sooner rather than later. I don’t want the U.S. government to do the killing, though. That task belongs to the people of that nation. They’ve earned it.
How much longer do they have to endure atrocities from Assad?
I understand why people are saying, “Let’s help out the people of Syria with military intervention,” and why people say, “No, no, no. We shouldn’t rush into another Iraq-paradigm. Let’s think about this.” It’s a complex issue with equally valid arguments on both sides.
This situation is only being complicated by the alleged cyber-attack from Assad on the New York Times website. “A mysterious group dubbed the Syrian Electronic Army claimed responsibility for sabotaging Twitter and is suspected of being behind the Times attack,” said Bill Hutchinson, of the New York Daily News. I’d like to see some peace.