If
Syrians could have seen the future of the next seven years in the
year 2010 would they have voted on a referendum for a civil war?
Virtually any reasonably well in formed individual could have known
that a Syrian civil war would be bloody, protracted and cause a
flood of refugees from the nation. So why did the Obama
administration consistently promote the escalation of conflict
providing support for rebel forces that had the foreseeable
unintended consequence of providing weapons and training to ISIS?
Stimulating
civil wars by sponsoring favorite elements does not seem like a
terribly moral activity for many circumstances in which conflicts
could arise. The Syrian situation was and is complex socially, and
not like a simpler peer conflict such as was the American revolution
where white people revolted against other white people that regarded
themselves as of a higher empirical or legal class. For practical
purposes George Washington was the first (for lack of a better word)
nigger revolutionary in the U.S.A. to effectively lead a nigger
revolt against slave owners, a.k.a. royalty. Unless it be God,
royalty are Satan's devices against which niggers need revolt to be
free. A human habit is to transform positions whereby they administer
political power into royalty enfeofment even issuing trillions of
zero interest loans to co-conspirators so they may cascade new
e-dollars of their own.
The
Syrian conflict did not involve such a social situation. In fact the
Sunni are intolerant of Shia and Alawi believers and find it
convenient to kill them now and then. To purge Syria of Alawi, Shia
and Christians was the effectual consequence of a successful Sunni
rebellion against the Assad regime.
While
social stratification and segregation are implicitly reprehensible,
it is none the less necessary as a security measure now and the for
some cultures, in order that they may exist safely. Economic
segregation is a camouflaged form of racial and ethnic segregation
obviously. A false cry to end segregation with rebellion may in some
instances be used as a device for aggressors to expropriate the land
and wealth of the righteous. If there are two sorts of people in the
world; aggressors and non-aggressors, those aggressing at any given
time are the actual aggressors and the defenders the defenders.
It
is remarkable how often in modern times especially with broadcast
media accomplices aggressors present themselves a overthrowing
oppressors.
The
end of the first world war brought the allied powers to redraw the
boundaries of the Middle East that had been controlled by the
occupation of the Ottoman Empire. France was given a mandate to rule
Syria for a time before it became independent. In the more
disorganized condition of people in the second and third world before
the transistor was invented, followed by computers and cell phones,
it was not necessary to partition the Sunni and Alawi/Shia/Christians
of Syria. Eventually the sectarian issues along with trans-national
politics and terrorist/liberation movements transformations as well
as support from the Obama administration created ripe conditions for
a Syrian civil war. Plainly it might be better to partition Syria
today in order to end the conflict.
A
reasonable partition might be one for the Assad forces, one for the
Kurds along the Turkish border and adjoining Iraq, and one for the
Sunni such that it shares a border with at least one other Sunni
nation.
Those
seeking to dominate all of Syria might be forging a lasting
instability regionally and even globally. The next U.S. President
should pursue a strong partition for Syria and rebuild the reformed
nation as soon as possible. It is not to early to create a Marshall
Plan for a Reformed Syria.
No comments:
Post a Comment