I had a conversation with my brother-in-law the other night that really hit home for me. He has been in the Army for 4 years now, and has a sweet little 3 year old baby girl. Even though he is my brother-in-law, he has been a trusted friend for many years. I met him in middle school, and we have pretty much grown into adults together. I saw him enter the Army during the War on Terrorism, and I fearfully waited for them to call him over seas. Despite his volunteers to go, they did not deploy him. Now, a couple months away from his discharge from the Army, he has made the choice to decline re-signing for another four years. He wants to raise his little girl and enjoy a family. Two days ago, though, when discussing this with an authority while filling out paperwork, they warned him of his two year IRR commitment. They said with the way things are headed, he would probably be getting a call to go to Syria. This breaks my heart. There are so many men like him with small children, teenagers, wives and families. Granted, they made the choice to sign on with America's military forces, but I can't help but take this one personally.
So I began thinking about my blog and researching articles on the subject. I found an article through Fox News' website called "Syria strike's dangerous calculus=Assad loses and Al Qaeda wins." The article I chose to analyze is quite obviously opposing infiltrating Syria with American military forces. It seems as though, however, there are many pros and cons to each argument. The article briefly outlines the reasons why we should attack Syria with equal force, but I found it interesting that the author uses very tricky language. The author states that Syria has not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, however, according to www.newrepublic.com, in an article titled "The Best Way To Intervene In Syria Isn't To Help The Rebels," John B. Judis tells us that Syria signed the Geneva Protocol in 1968. This agreement was signed by the League of Nations and the United States 43 years earlier in 1925 banning the use of chemical or biological weapons. Although, signing and ratifying are two different things, the signing of a legal document is by definition "agreeing to the terms and conditions listed in that document." Ratifying just hammers in the idea that it is legally binding. Therefore, if this is looked at in terms of ratification, it could easily be argued that Syria isn't internationally bound. Unfortunately for them, though, they DID sign the document and by doing so agreed upon those terms.
So the question obviously remains a conflicting one. Many innocent lives were taken due to Assad's terrible act of chemical attack. Should we be the "international police" and go after Syria like Obama suggests? Or should we back off because this may or may not indirectly help our declared enemy, Al Qaeda? This is a question I cannot answer. Even after thorough research and analysis, I don't feel qualified to give an opinion. What I can say is that as much as I love and cherish my brother-in-law, Jason, and as much as I would hate to see him get on a flight destined to battle and warfare, I respect him for his decision to stand behind America and its leader. Innocent children were the victims of Assads little stunt, and that enfuriates me to an extreme extent, but when should we stop sacrificing our men (and their children) to this warfare? What is the line? I personally have no idea, but I can say a lot of people's lives are going to be changed really soon, so I think we should definitely form an educated opinion if we haven't already done so.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/09/syria-strike-dangerous-calculus-assad-loses-and-al-qaeda-wins/?intcmp=trending
No comments:
Post a Comment