Syria, war and human ego…
While fishing out of the internet pond today I saw a few news bits on Syria. I was surprised to see coverage considering its “old news” to everyone now. Clearly, this set my mind into motion, pondering on Syria, war and humanity. War is a horrible thing. If war could only directly affect those who waged it the outcome would not be so devastating. So many innocent people die in war. People in war torn countries and Syria are displaced from their homes, forced to suffer in every way one can suffer and watch the people they care about and love die simply because other humans are too greedy, careless, ego driven and corrupt to find peaceful solutions. War is often inevitable. Rarely are two groups at odds going to sacrifice in order for them to gain peace. A situation may arise where one side is willing to compromise and accommodate but the other sides refuses to relent on any issues. Human ego is just as terrible as war.
I have mixed feelings about the war in Syria. Awful atrocities are happening to the people of that country by their government and as the results of the war. However, horrible things are happening right now in other countries and continents. Syria is not the only civil war torn country with dictators and horrible governments torturing, starving and abusing people. Part of me believes that the US should step in and help and part of me thinks it is time for the US to stop policing the world. Maybe it is time for a global approach to such events. Enlist a group of countries that equally deal with these conflicts or dismantle the UN since it is useless and put something more effective into place. It seems that every battle that the United States gets involved in drags the economy down. Getting involved in wars also blind Americans to the fact that this “Melting Pot” is slowly coming to a boil and is eventually going to run over. Should the United States get involved if there is great potential to harm its own citizens in the process? I just don’t know anymore. Peter Singer is a great philosopher and I enjoy reading his work. He presents this moral idea, “If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.” Of course we should. Doing something without opposition or struggles is easy. It is much harder to help when sacrifice is involved.
Let us say you see a small child drowning in a shallow pond and no one else is around. Most people will wade out to the child and pull them to safety without much or any internal moral dilemma. Yes, your clothes got muddy, you got cold and wet but this is insignificant in comparison to the child’s life. A good deed performed for the greater good of the child but with no real inconvenience or sacrifice. Now let us say you are a bad swimmer and are in bad health yet you stumble upon a person drowning in a deep lake far from shore. You know that to jump in to save this person means that there is a real good chance you would drown with them. There is no time to get help. What do you do? It is a very hard question to answer. I believe this question cannot be truthfully answered until such a situation occurs. My problem is I am not sure which situation Syria is, the child drowning or the grown person drowning. Does it mean the US will only get muddy and wet or possibly sink deeper into economic turmoil by funding another war? Should we help either way? Go to love internal moral debate.
The troubles of the world are truly overwhelming and humbling. I am so fortunate I do not have to suffer the pains of war, starvation, exposure, death and living in fear. Even though the U.S. is allowing mass corruption and greed to slowly slip its cold hands tighter around the neck of Americans citizens I realize that I have much more freedom, rights and privileges than so many. My struggles are petty in comparison to what people in Syria and other parts of the world are currently going through. It is tough to know what is right and moral. Do we step in and help or not?
Even if the US does get involved, innocent people will be killed. Bombs stray, targets are missed, humans make mistakes, information is wrong and the wrong people are killed. Will stepping into this war help in the end and result in a better future for Syrians? The US doesn’t have a very good record on making things better for the countries it goes to war with and “helps”. This is likely because our government steps into another war or goes to war for profit hidden behind the notion of bettering others. However, I think if the US could go with only one motive, to sincerely help Syria, they could improve the situation. If this would happen, I would support going to war. Obviously, this isn’t going to happen because our government (and most countries) only go to war if there is something to gain not to help. My position right now is this; I would support going to war with Syria or any country if it were only to better those involved. I do not support a war that makes the United States, its government officials, greedy corporations and war profiteers richer at the cost of others’ lives.