Wednesday, 14 December 2016
There Is No "Right" Side
For years the city has been a bitter battleground between heavily armed rebel militias, and government forces loyal to the dictatorial President al-Assad who are backed up by Russian aerial bombardment. Most of the city is in ruins, men have gone missing, and women and children are being used as human shields or simply executed by pro-Assad soldiers.
Yesterday a tentative ceasefire was violated - each side is blaming the other - and activists are posting heart-wrenching videos to the Internet, saying that agreements to allow evacuations of citizens have not been heeded, and they fear for their lives and the lives of their families. The United Nations is accusing the Syrian government of failing to protect its people and of violating international law.
Many of my friends are asking, why has there been no intervention?
Part of the reason is nobody knows what the "right" side is.
Going by the philosophy of "us vs them": if weapons are being sold to one side, then that's the "right" side. The minute the other side discovers a source of greater wealth, then we were "conned" and have to support the wealthier side.
We've seen this happen in Afghanistan, where first the Taliban were the bad guys, then they weren't, then they were again. Flip flop rinse repeat. All to kill one man, who is now dead.
So why are American forces are still there today? To guard an oil pipeline? It appears that way. Why don't they have a look at the threat of a Russia/Iran/Syria supremacy that could threaten Israel and American oil interests in the region?
Several countries including the United States have been arming various jihadist groups in order to bring about regime change. It didn't go well in Libya or Iraq, and it won't work here either. It's next to impossible to determine the "right" side when both sides are committing atrocities.
Perhaps there's no "right" side at all. Not when civilians are feeling the brunt of the viciousness.