serious questions

In case you were unaware, the Intramuralist has at times been quite specific about the love of grammar.  In fact — hands down — my favorite punctuation mark is the question.  Asking questions.  I love it.

 

To ask a question implies humility.  It’s the only punctuation mark that invites a response.  And unless only asking to hear oneself think — and yes, I am making the almighty assumption that the asker actually listens to the answer — to ask means to acknowledge that we don’t have all the answers.

 

Friends, the situation in Syria is serious.  If you aren’t paying attention, I would strongly encourage you to quickly take note.  The situation is intense and evolving, and the potential consequences and results from both action and inaction are ambiguous at best.  Hence, the Intramuralist has many questions.  Why?  Because we don’t have all the answers.

 

One caveat prior to the asking…

Military conflict is not a partisan issue.  There should be no politics involved.  While “shame on you” is a phrase not in my vernacular, if there was a place for the consideration of employment, it would undoubtedly be here.

 

Hence, the questions…

 

What’s new that has led to this level of seriousness?  This conflict has been ongoing since 2011.  According to the latest estimates by the United Nations, more than 70,000 Syrians have died.  Why consider getting involved now?

 

Syrian Pres. Bashar al-Assad has led Syria since 2000, succeeding his deceased father, who was president for 30 years.  What is Assad’s agenda?  Are any of his motives hidden?  What are they?

 

What role do Islamic extremists play?  The terrorist group, Hezbollah, has supported Assad’s government, while the Associated Press has been reporting that a primary rebel group in Syria has pledged allegiance to the terrorist group, al-Qaeda.  Are we aligning with terrorists?  Whose side are we on?  Whose side should we be on?

 

We must therefore extend our questions to address American involvement.  Pres. Obama is advocating interference due to the believed use of chemical weapons.  Pres. Bush advocated involvement after the believed existence of chemical weapons.  Let me ask now:  where did Syria actually obtain their chemical weapons?

 

Should America be involved in the civil war of another?  Is that our job?  Is that our role?    Are we capable of being effective?  And if we aren’t certain it’s effective, should we even entertain the role?

 

Attacking anyone will cost us millions.  Billions.  Maybe more.  We are a country that is continuously spending more than we take in.  Few others in the world have affirmed an attack and committed to support any military intervention.  That means the role is ours; the lead is ours; and the expense is ours.  And the reality is that the cost may mean more than money; it may mean military lives.  Is that too much to pay?

 

Is it America’s calling to be the world’s police?  Was it right under Pres. Bush?  Is it right under Pres. Obama?  Is it ever right?

 

Friends, I have a lot of questions.  I don’t have a lot of answers.  We must acknowledge we don’t have all the answers.  The situation in Syria is serious indeed.

 

Respectfully,

AR