This is what I'm being faced with today as I find that everyone has a view on Syria and as the government of our sceptred (or perhaps that should be septic) isle comes back early to discuss what measures they should take.
Having written on the responsibility to protect yesterday I have to say that people are just a little confused at the moment and for a number of reasons:
It's Not our Problem
I will deal with this more at the end of this scribble - but I have to say that (in my opinion) those who are content to see the images on their screens and consider what they see as nothing to do with them are in need of some social and moral education. How can anyone be unmoved by what they have seen and how anyone can shrug and dismiss it as that most invisible of all things, the 'someone else's problem' field is beyond me.
Regime Change
Can I point out that any nation, or confederation of nations, that enters another country's sovereign territory with the intention of removing its democratically elected leader (and/or government) is guilty of breaking international law. This is proscribed against in the Geneva and other conventions and is also found within international law as well - it is illegal.
Proportionality
When any conflict is enacted, it is the duty of both sides to do the very minimum in terms of taking life and reigning destruction down upon the enemy. The current attitude (as espoused this very morning by one of those passing me in the street) of 'slotting the B***s' and 'bombing the place to hell' is great on the big screen but it is neither legal, moral or effective.
Vote Winning
Here we are with a pretty much financially bankrupt country and we want to add to that label the term 'morally bankrupt' too? Nah - surely not even the weakest brained politician (and there's so many to choose from) can really believe that conflict is a vote-winner.
Right response
That's easy - the right response is to wait and see what the UN inspectors come up with following their assessment of the sites and warheads found in Syria. It would be wrong to believe the US intelligence (isn't that an oxymoron?) reports because to be honest that was what caused some of the issues surrounding Iraq - and whilst there were WMDs at some stage, what we have subsequently found in the reports was conjecture rather than fact - and that's not intelligent intelligence is it?
Back to Basics
The process is clear and obvious regarding Syria:
Political means which include dialogue and confrontation, sanction, embargo, trade, travel and other restrictions. When these measures have been attempted and exhausted then there is the final, military, response - peace-keeping forces.
Those who are calling for the rebels to be armed and supported are wrong (have the Americans and their 'arm our friends' follies taught us nothing) for, as the Bible tells us, there are two sides to every conflict and it's rarely a black and white affair.
Those who are saying that 'It's none of our business,' are also wrong because it is - morally and spiritually! Looking back at the Shoah (AKA the Nazi holocaust against the Jews), Rwanda, Kosovo, Darfur, Cambodia and many other places it is obvious that wicked people exist and act wickedly against those in the nations - and we must make 'never again' a reality, not some trite cliché.
Conflict has to be the last resort but the reality lies in the words of the old Latin motto:
'Si vis pacem, para bellum'*
Boots on the ground are the very final response - but we do need our government, and all the governments of the world (are you listening Russia?) to discuss at local level and bring that discussion to a global setting so that a consensus is reached and a balanced response made.
So are you praying - I know I am :-)
Pax
*'If you want peace, prepare for war'
