CNN asks the magical question, "What would make you care about Aleppo?":
It's human nature and simple geography: Things that happen far away, to people we have never known from areas of the world we have no connection to, don't hit us as hard as whatever is happening at home. So if you don't particularly care about the Syrian Civil War, or the crisis it's created in places like the city of Aleppo, it makes sense.Exactly! End of article. Nothing further needs to be said.
Of course, they have to continue:
The Syrian Civil War has been raging for five years now, and it is, to say the least, a multi-layered conflict. Aleppo is a major city in Syria, and it's in the news a lot because it is one of the hardest-hit areas of the war. We're talking airstrikes and food, water and supply shortages affecting hundreds of thousands of people.And then they proceed to try and sell you on caring. We get horrific pictures, statistics, and dead children.
But that doesn't affect you directly. There are a thousand reasons why you may not care about Aleppo.
The question is, what's the one reason why you would?
And still, I don't care.
Here is a news flash which the bleeding hearts at CNN need to understand: Everyone is responsible for the government they choose. The Syrians don't get to evade responsibility because it has come back to bite them in their collective butt.
So when Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson had his "Aleppo moment", I was right there with him. Even after I figured out what Aleppo was, my response was, "So?"
If you, as an individual, truly care about the Syrian civil war, go over there and pick a side and fight for it.
That is the rub, isn't it? There is no good side in that war. On one side, there is President Bashar al-Assad, who is a dictatorial jerk in the mold of Saddam Hussein. On the other side is ISIS, a terrorist organization which fancies itself as the great Islamic caliphate. And there is a third side: The Kurds, but they aren't powerful enough to make a huge difference, not to mention they are a minority in Syria. For the Syrians, their choices are worse than Trump or Clinton.
If I were truly to get involved in Syria, I think the best thing we could do for them is nuke the country. At least it would be merciful. But frankly, I would hate to waste a perfectly good nuke on them.
The best analogy for this is the next door neighbors having an argument. But with these neighbors, we don't like the husband or wife. Frankly, if they killed each other, it would do the whole neighborhood a favor. Unfortunately, we are the police, so we can't call anyone. If we intervene, there isn't a good side to help. And unless we take over their house completely, there isn't anything we can do to stop them from fighting. Ultimately, it comes down to this: Why risk our lives to stop two people hell-bent on killing each other?
So what is the point of this CNN article? As near as I can figure, they are trying to bang the war drums for U.S. military boots on the ground. As you recall, we tried that in Iraq and Afghanistan. That didn't work so well.
On top of that, we have Russia already in Syria, supporting President Assad. Unless we are supporting Russia, who doesn't really want our support, there isn't a good reason for us to support ISIS there. Unless we want a war against Russia, which is sheer:
Sometimes, a bad situation is just that. It is like watching a shark swim by: Don't mess with it, and you won't get bitten.
If there is a takeaway for us, here it is: Elections have consequences. When you support particular candidates, you get what you deserve. And remember this: When your candidate wants to increase government power over your life, that also means you are giving up control of some of your own rights, as well as the rights of ALL Americans.
The lesson of Aleppo is clear: I am sure most Syrians didn't expect themselves to be caught up in a nightmare like they are. And don't get so comfortable that you think something like that can't happen in America, because it can.
No comments:
Post a Comment