To Intervene or Not To Intervene?

Anissa Katti,

Correspondent (Politics)

 

DAMASCUS — Lately it seems like a one million dollar question — should the West go to yet another war with the Middle East, or should it do what it has failed to do so far and mind its own business? Our freedom-fighting Western leaders constantly stress on arguments such as “Oh no, but we cannot let crimes against humanity go unpunished” and “Have we thought of the poor civilian population?” (the same civilian population that has been forced out of the country out of fear of a ‘targeted’ military operation). I suppose if we look at the bigger picture we will realise that this has more to do with economic motives (such as the exploitation of Deir Ez Zor for its petrol and Tabiyeh Gas for its gas), as well as unimaginable alliances so dark and ill-formed one wouldn’t dare suggest their very existence, and those who have were laughed in the face and pitied. But see, I am a conspiracy theorist — or rather I believe in conspiracy theories. I think somewhere down the line the American government did have something to do with 9/11 and I believe that, to a certain extent, the gearings of the geopolitics of the world are controlled by a small array of oligarchs.

Allow us to take a little walk down memory lane. Back when America’s — the “civilised, free and democratic world” – enemy was Soviet Russia, they did have close ties with extremist Islamic groups; since the United States was also an extremist religious state, it could really feel for them. America armed the Jihad forces in Afghanistan to fight off the Soviets in 1979, only to have those same arms pointed at it later. Now it is true that the US has a bad track record for arming its enemies. And here it is again, about to engage in a war side by side with its favourite bad guys — the al Qaeda. Since the Cold War, the American economy has been based on the military-industrial complex. In other words, America’s entire economic system is based on its war-craft production. That and the fact that they are always there to save the day of course.

On the other hand, the images that we receive from what is happening in Syria are atrocious. 1,10,000 have already been killed and it is time to blow the whistle. But let us not forget the number one rule in journalism: the commentary dictates the image and orients our perception of it.

So what do we do? Are we sufficiently informed on the use of chemical weapons in Syria to launch a military intervention? What if we do and then breed more violence in the region? Will Syria become another Afghanistan or Iraq? And then who’s next? Egypt? If we are wrong to interpose and find out only once we have done irreparable damage, are we prepared to face the consequences? More importantly what if Bashar al-Assad really is using chemical weapons against his own people, are we prepared to let him get away with it? What kind of message does that send to dictators around the world? And what about the Christians in Syria who have benefited from Assad’s protection until now? Where lies the right and the wrong? One thing is sure though, we need more information.

Yes, but after all it is true that the US never lies to safeguard its own personal interests. Oh wait.

-

Image Courtesy: anevillemorgan (http://www.flickr.com/photos/anevillemorgan/6844846072)