PLEASE CLICK TITLE
I came across this blog the other day via the news, and I must say this deserves a spotlight like no other. Predator drone strikes are a terror not only new but particularly horrifying. Envision yourself walking down a road, you spy another pedestrian on the other side of the street and within a moment the silhouette is replaced by a strong explosion. You learn after the fact the individual was no state threat, rather just a father on his way home to his kids. The target the drone pilot was after was only a few meters away, but was missed, thus the enemy continues his movement whilst the victim does not. Everyday citizens of Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, and so on must live in fear of being wiped from the face of the earth by a robot buzzing above, on the hunt for the approximate location of supposed enemy activity. In the name of saving our own troops from perishing, the civilians make the sacrifice being caught in the crossfire. I recommend the support of the #NotABugSplat movement, for the violation of sovereignty and human rights committed in drone warfare absolutely deserves conversation. -Shivite12
Posted by shivite12
Hello readers, it’s good to be back at the keys and even better to be resuming the dissection of varying international circumstances. When examining the Syrian conflict I tend to first place a spotlight on Assad: Can he run? Will his funds save him? Is there an option for Assad outside of simply winning or losing the war? The answer to each of these questions: No. Assad has more money, arguably more military might, but an even worse international standing than former Libyan dictator Muammar al-Gaddafi, and as you may recall he received no asylum in his final days. It is certain this thought haunts Assad each night before he sleeps and every morning he awakes.
His desperation has led him to seek help from abroad via a strategy now commonly utilized on the international stage: the portrayal of opposition as a terrorist force. His portrayal of the FSA as terrorists serves to invite anti-sunni extremists from over the borders to engage in a “Holy War” against the Sunni majority, for Assad’s Alawaite sect makes up roughly 12% of the islamic population in Syria. Assad needs the conflict to be portrayed as a holy war against terrorists lest he be overwhelmed by sheer numbers. Declaring the FSA as a terrorist organization isn’t entirely accurate however, while the FSA has fought alongside terrorist groups such as Jabhat al-Nursa the FSA is not linked to al-Qaeda. Further, if and when Assad falls, the groups maintain polarizing views on what direction Syria will head in post-Assad, which will likely lead to further years of civil strife. Had the FSA been armed early on by the United States, Al-Nursa’s involvement would not have been needed by the FSA for military support against the Syrian Government Army, and thus the call to global jihadists and international mercenaries would have likely been weak if present at all. The mess the United States feared of Syria should the rebels be armed: it being a state supporter of terrorism, supporter of Iran, have a grudge against Israel and the U.S, that human rights violations could occur within the borders amidst political distrust and corruption, yet these are all aspects of present Syria with the Assad regime. Had the rebels been armed before their desperation lead them into Jihadist hands it can be argued that the FSA’s influence would have remained prominent and allowed Al-Nursa no time to establish itself as a prominent force in the nation. Had Nursa not grown and the United States stepped in as it did in Libya, the conflict likely would have concluded hastily and with less bloodshed.
If terrorist influence has finally grown to the point where the U.S. believes the situation should be reevaluated, this could be the last opportunity to aid the FSA before the conflict spirals further into civil conflict corrupting international volunteers and spitting them back out as hardened soldiers of fortune, possibly bent on wreaking havoc abroad. The United States has an obligation as a world superpower to help where needed, yet it is common for nations in such a position to do so only when personal interest is being served. In this case personal interest would have been served with aid to the FSA and their eventual victory possibly leading to a strong bond with the new Syria and an additional ally in the region, yet for once when the right thing was to get involved we didn’t. The nations track record of interjecting, ranging from Honduras, to Vietnam, to Iran is despicable yet eerily consistent, but when the time comes to really provide needed and requested help, particularly on a military scale, the United States somehow falls through. My hope is that some kind of foreign power, if not the United States, will aid the FSA before its dwindling influence fades to nothing, allowing for Nursa to become the primary force battling Assad, opening the door for a much more likely Jihadist home base when Assad topples. -Shivite12
Posted by shivite12
Today a friend and I discussed the humanitarian crisis in Syria. As we delved deeper into the labyrinth of government kidnapping and extremist jihad ideologies, frustration at the desperation of the situation began to reveal itself on his face. He asked me finally, “why is the rest of the world getting involved then? Even its neighbors attack(Israel and as of yesterday Turkey) when the conflict spills in the slightest, why don’t we just let them eliminate each other within their borders secluded from the rest of the world?” I was awestruck at the notion. The answer I gave was pitiful.
“Because that isn’t the right thing to do.” What a joke. Well now I wish to address this question after some time letting it bounce around in my head.
1. Why isn’t that the right thing to do? When a nation experiences prolonged and costly turmoil, the road to recovery tends to be a long one fraught with despair reminiscent of the conflict itself, as was seen with the fallout of the Spanish Civil War. A steady simmer, as evidenced by the current protests taking place in Spain, remains present among the populace and wears on their nerves considerably. Allowing this to happen in Syria, then the next country and the next, only furthers the precedent of insubordination among the cooperating international community.
2. So what? The strongest countries will prosper. A domino effect of countries experiencing civil strife fueled by mercenary forces can spread easily, and despite any interest in war games, civilians are forced to handle the fallout. Why allow Syria to continue to fall deeper into conflict until a nation and a race are practically wiped from the Earth? Further, no country is immune to civil strife and eventual downfall, as even the most powerful nations have internal problems only further stoking the fire.
3. What kind of fallout could be so bad from a civil war that it calls for international intervention? Picture an entire generation of people with missing families, limbs, education, money, homes, trapped in eternal poverty in their war ravaged home, in a prolonged humanitarian crisis that could have been avoided. Then to add to the problem, millions of Syrians will flood the world in a bid to escape a horrific experience on the home front. While I personally couldn’t blame them for wanting to escape such atrocities, its recognized that many countries wouldn’t be quite so receptive to a flood of refugees, atop those that have already ran from the conflict. Why allow things to spiral to such a height? The world powers must address this conflict and come up with a prompt and reasonable solution, for this blasphemous slaughter has dragged on long enough. So why isn’t ignoring the problem the right thing to do? Ignorance is only bliss as long as your conflict isn’t the one being ignored. Is enjoying brief ignorance and avoidance worth letting the fire spread to our allies, let alone ourselves. Action now can prevent greater action later.