I wish the United States could be the “policeman of the world”. It would be great to have such a passionate country like ours protecting the rest of the world. But unfortunately, we don’t have the resources to be the superheroes at the moment. Currently, we are almost $20 trillion in debt. Now call me crazy, but is it wrong of me to want to fix my country’s problems before other countries? Some might think of it as unethical, selfish even, but I think we need to repair damages on the home front before we go out and attack.
When news first broke out about the chemical warfare attacks, I refused to believe it. Seeing pictures of rows and rows of children with their eyes closed and their hands folded over their chest was appalling. Now I love children: babbling babies, ill-tempered infants, troublesome toddlers, all of them. So you can imagine it absolutely broke my heart when I learned that out of the 1,400 victims, more than 400 of them were children. At first, I was blinded by anger, saying that the United States needed to hurry up and just kill all the rebels. But later I learned that the executioner of the chemical weapons attacks was unidentified. Syria and Russia claim they have evidence that shows the rebels using the mustard gas, but there has been no presentation of the evidence. It’s not really clear on who did what; even though there might be a 90% chance that it was the rebels who ordered the attacks, there is still a 10% chance that it was somebody else.
I am the kind of girl that goes all the way or I don’t do it at all. Obama’s current plan of enforcing a limited air strike on Syria is, honestly, a little wimpy. It’s like saying, ‘Hey Syria, so I know that there’s this red line that you kind of crossed, but I’ll let it slide this time. Here’s a few cruise missiles headed your way; consider this a warning’. We don’t have the time or the money to waste on aimless cruise missiles that will be sent as a slap on the wrist. I believe that the U.S. government should seek out clear, unquestionable, indisputable evidence that a certain party was in charge of the inhumane assaults, and then take action.
But figuring out whether the Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad, or the rebels carried out the attacks leads to another question: which side does America pick? If it indeed was al-Assad and his people who ordered the attacks, then shouldn’t America be cheering for the dictator? After all, the majority of the rebel group in Syria believes that the fastest way of getting into heaven is by killing more Americans. The group is comprised of multiple sub-groups: most want us dead, and some just want democracy for their country. But if it was the rebel forces who issued the attacks, then do we support al-Assad? But how could we, if he stands for the very things that contradict America’s core values? Whether we support the ruler or the rebels, there are rough waters ahead, for both Syria and the U.S., should we choose to engage in this conflict.
There is no clear resolution for this kind of situation, nor will there ever be one. Yes, it is the morally correct thing to do, but America doesn’t have the monetary resources to be a good neighbor at the moment. There also isn’t enough evidence to prove 110% without a doubt it was one party that committed these crimes and not the other. The founding principles of this country were based on Christian ideals, so the Christian thing to do would be to help others in need even though you yourself are in a time of crisis. But if the United States did go out and help all the countries who were having struggles, we would be spread out so thin that all of our efforts would be seen as pointless, for all the chaos would rise again out of the holes of our paper-thin layer of security.