verum planto vos solvo

Evil prospers when good men do nothing.

There were a number of photographs I could have posted. Some included pictures of six year old children lined up on the ground - all dead. Others showed entire families slaughtered on the living room floor. Some were more graphic than others. Ultimately, I settled on the photo above. It shows death and grief. It show the results of President Assad's assault on his own Syrian people. It shows a type of genocide, one inflicted upon a people within their own borders by their own leader, because they dare to want to live in freedom. Since the uprising in Syria began, thousands of civilians have suffered and died at the hands of Assad's regime. If you show any sympathy for the uprising, you and your family are targeted for assassination. Entire cities sympathetic to the freedom fighters are systematically attacked. Not because they are of a military or strategic importance, but because Assad's forces hope to punish those who dare speak up. And while all this goes on... we do nothing.

China and Russia continually veto any UN resolutions that are critical of Assad. Imagine the arguments they must make in the UN chambers against these resolutions. They should be embarrassed but I doubt they know how. While innocents are slaughtered - they argue in favor of those who do the slaughter. I am reminded of the old saying - "All that is necessary for evil to prosper, is for good men to do nothing". We are a good people of a good country. Yet we do nothing. Resolutions fail. Assad continues to kill. We protest. More children die.

I've not heard one person speak in favor of committing American troops in the Syrian cause, and you wont hear it from me either. But U.S. foot soldiers are not necessary nor are the rebels asking for any. What they do want is a chance at determining their own future. That future will be determined for them if they do not have the arms to liberate themselves from tyranny. It would be nice to think that rational conversations among nations and tyrants could resolve such matters. The truth is - they seldom do. Liberation comes at the end of a gun. It was true in WW I, WW II, the 1991 Gulf War, the Iraq War and our own American Revolution.

I cannot imagine how empty the Syrian people must feel. Eager and ready to fight against their own evil and no one will give them the tools to defend themselves. Meanwhile we sit by and beg the U.N. for help. Why must the United States beg those who facilitate this carnage? We should immediately define evil in the name of Bashar Assad. Automatic weapons, rocket launchers, food and medical supplies must be airlifted to the regions where the rebel strongholds exist. We admitted to having "eyes and ears on the ground"  (CIA) in Syria just as we did in Libya. These efforts can be coordinated with minimal effort and costs. The payoff could be the fall of one pillar of evil within the middle east that includes Syria and it's ally, Iran. Russia and China support both these rouge nations. It is time to offer tangible support of our own - and not in the way of meaningless U.N. resolutions. There are those nations who would follow if we led. But clearly, it must be us who leads.

The United States, whether we like it or not, has some responsibility to support those who, like us 236 years ago, sought to throw off the shackles of a tyrannical oppressor. And like us, asks only for the tools to gain that freedom. Can we deny our help to those who seek the same today - as we did so many years ago? In 2009, the United States said nothing during the demonstrations in Iran. Not a word of support. Not a syllable. And they died in the streets asking us why we remained quiet. That was not leadership. We stayed silent and the brave died. Now we have another opportunity. History may well note that this was a defining moment in time. The question is - will it note the liberation of the oppressed with the help of the standard bearer of liberty, the United States? Or will it note the deafening silence of good men who allowed the slaughter to continue?

3 comments:

  1. Where are you "good men" protesting the slaughter of children by drone strikes in Pakistan? Yemen? Afghanistan?

    20 kids get killed by a madman in a school in CT, the whole nation weeps. Schools get blown up by missile fire as a matter/consequence of US foreign policy - it's barely page 5 news (if that). No solemn words by anyone. Nothing said to assuage the grief of the loved ones left behind.

    Just 'collateral damage', yeah?

    We don't have any "responsibility" to go meddling in the affairs of other people. Didn't George Washington advise us against this? Of avoiding entangling alliances?

    I believe in the words of John Quincy Adams : "[America] has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."

    You can read the entire passage here: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/jqadams.htm

    We can condemn violence. We may oppose oppression. But can we be sure that the "rebels we support today" won't turn around and form an Islamist state in Syria?

    And no - not all liberation comes from the barrel of a gun: Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela are two examples that come immediately to mind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There should be a '' in between "...that visits the heart." and "But she goes not abroad..."

      It erroneously gives the impression that it is a contiguous quote, when it is not.

      Mea Culpa.

      Delete
  2. You make valid points. However,comparing the tragedy in Connecticut to drone strikes in Pakistan or elsewhere is a prime example of "apple and oranges". There was no noble cause associated with the school shootings, just a madman inflicting carnage. I'm well aware of Adam's quote and I believe it to be a well thought out philosophy and national policy. Though I have to wonder if he ever envisioned the United States being a sole military superpower capable of assisting a people being slaughtered - without introducing ground troops. I can't accept the notion that the middle east, much less the Syrian people would be better off without Assad. What comes after him may or may not be better. But at the very least, they'd have an opportunity at a better life. Just as I believe even one slave enslaves all of us, I believe oppression without resistance by those who could help, oppresses us all as well. As collateral deaths in a military campaign - it will occur. It's not pretty but It will always happen. But NOT to take action because it MAY happen is just handcuffing the measures of justice.

    ReplyDelete