I think its safe to say that terrorism is bad. And I’m
pretty sure that the America population would unanimously agree with that
statement. For the past two decades, the emergence of terrorism as a principle
military and political strategy has been a constant bane to the United States:
both in foreign and domestic affairs. Our military interventions in Iraq and
Afghanistan have been consistently antagonized by the Taliban, al Queda and
other rogue insurgent groups determined to undermine our authority and hegemony
through their attacks. And then a little closer to all of our hearts, the
attack on the World Trade Center on 9-11. It seems that terrorism has
consistently opposed core Western values like democracy and has worked to
install government systems that rely on fear tactics and ignore human rights.
![]() |
The United Nations has sent representatives to oversee the conflict in Syria but even their influence has not prevented terrorism from emerging as part of the opposition |
But
what if it worked for us? Persistent despite United Nations sanctions, the war
in Syria continues to rage, with President Bahsar al-Assad deploying more
forces and tanks to fight the opposition. This clash, however has produced some
unexpected results. As conflict is extended and the battle becomes even more
dangerous, rebelling civilians have felt the need to increase the severity of
their attacks, specifically, with the use of terrorism. In the past few days,
multiple incidents of both road-side and suicide bombings have occurred, targeting Syrian
military forces. Granted, road-side bombings are not something unheard of in
the Middle Eastern region, but these occurrence have a distinct twist to them.
This terrorism is being used to support
democracy and reform, a sharp contrast to the usual totalitarian regimes that
it is usually the proponent of.
This
being considered, the United States will have to think strongly about their
position on these actions. For one, they could allow it to continue and support
these actions against the Assad regime. However, this is risky, as the military
support of radical movements like these have given dictators like Saddam
Hussein the ability to rise to power. On the other hand, working against these
rebels would create an irresolvable disparity in foreign alliances. Working
against both of these would be a waste of funds and with limits enforced by the
U.S. and U.N., Syrian rebels could not maintain a viable military effort and
Assad would presumably retain power—leaving one less stable foothold in the
Middle East.
![]() |
Security forces examine the after effects of a suicide bombing in Damascus |
Once
again the United States will be forced to choose between diplomacy and human
rights. In this ongoing dilemma, our personal interests and those of the states
in which we intervene will be pitted against each other. In this scenario,
action or the lack thereof can both have serious consequences, and the decision
the United States makes will set precedent for our policy in the future. The
discrepancy between our ideals and our actions has never become more apparent
and the stance we take regarding these acts of terrorism in our favor will influence
our image at home, abroad, and throughout our entire future.
No comments:
Post a Comment