children children's rights LEBANON war

Life course interrupted~ Syrian refugee

Syrian refugee in North Lebanon
Syrian refugee in North Lebanon

As the west prepares to launch a missile attack on Syria in the coming days, the innocent children find themselves caught in the games of warring adults having no say as to where their life will be taking them next. More than 4000 Syrians are seeking refuge daily in Lebanon, where they make a staggering 35% of the Lebanese population today. A ticking bomb in a fragile zone, heart breaking and unfair in so many ways. If the children are the hope for our future, why are we endangering that chance?

By ~mimo~

Photographer, Art searcher, Motion Designer, traveler.

28 replies on “Life course interrupted~ Syrian refugee”

We mow know that President Obama has, for now, held back on asking for US Congress’ approval to launch the missiles. I fear that the technology still isn’t there to ensure that innocent civilians will not get hit in that objective, so I’m personally glad that more consideration is being taken.

Unfortunately, Syrian rebels don’t agree. They’re disappointed, and have now resorted to saying hurry up and strike Damascus; seemingly unaware that the White House must first acquire approval from a 2/3 majority of Congress on any medium and large scale international military campaign (something that failed to occur during the Iran/Contras scandal of the 80’s), while the beastly Syrian government has begun to mock the US as being weak and cowardly.

I can’t help but wonder; of those understandably desperate Syrian rebels who want the US to strike, how many of them back in 9/11/2001 extolled the Al Queda plot, as was reported by western news agencies as well as Al Jazeera? Those who may have been America’s sworn enemy yesterday could now be some of those begging for American military support today. There’s no way to be sure of who is friend or foe here.

Due, in part, to his anger over 9/11, Republican President Bush sought approval from a majority Democrat Congress to go into Iraq to hunt for WMD’s and Al Queda — even while it was well known the Al Queda was mainly operating out of Afghanistan at the time. As Congress was also still scorned over 9/11, Bush easily got that approval. The lessons learned was that Bush, America and Iraq paid a terribly high price for acting on false intelligence from CIA and MI6 operatives, and striking out of revenge in a part of a world that the west still doesn’t fully understand. Iraq is still picking up the pieces.

The Taliban and Al Queda remain constant reminders to the US that it needs to tread ever so lightly in the Middle East, if at all. These are all of the reasons why Obama must take all the time necessary to figure out if he should ask Congress for bilateral approval to shoot missiles into Syria when there is no guarantee that the innocent will not be harmed, causing a future backlash from those whome America originally had good intentions for.

History repeating itself.

I wish there was a simple answer. Thank you for your thoughts and your thorough comment. And yes I wonder how much thinking and consideration is going into all this and if that can overpower the need to play the war game.

At best, it truly is a pitiful conflict over there, and a most distressful and trying decision for Obama to have to contend with for the sake of his conscience and those of compassionate thinking Americans.

Just consider that at least since JFK, every US President has received a fresh round-the-world intelligence brief first thing every morning from the JCS and CIA Director. Without a doubt, the motivator for Obama seeking permission to surgically strike Syria are the reports; inclusive of the most grim photos that we will never see, of men, women and children who have been tortured, raped, shot and chemically aasulted to death by the Syrian regime.

The US military has the technology to strike while still creating so called “collateral damage” in the range of 2 – 24 deaths per missile – of the types of missiles that would likely be used in the strike. For most of us on the ground in Syria, it’s easy for us to say that is still too high a cost of civilian lives. Those morning briefings; however, will include the direct quotes of the Syrian rebels, fighting against their most brutal dictatorship, that such collateral damage is acceptible to them because up to 24 deaths per several carefully directed LGB’s pales in comparison to thousands per week that are falling as a result of the Syrian regime. That would be pretty compelling to a president like Obama.

It is certainly not an easy decision to make. I would not want to be in his shoes. Any of theirs.

Obama should also know better than most what exactly is the relationship between Damascus and Moscow. That is also very important. Here’s why:

President Vladimir Putin stands to make a killing — pardon the pun, off of Syria which buys an awful lot of military weapons from Russia. While that, in simplest terms, translates into a trade agreement, most reliable journalists understand and refer to that relationship as an “alliance”. That’s a critical choice of words they use because that usually implies that there is more than just lucrative trade in agreement. It begs the question, is there something in that relationship that says that if Syria was to decalre “war” on an official enemy; even if its the US who has initiated a surgical strike, even if the notion sounds ludacrous, would Moscow be obligated to go to Syria’s aid militarily? If that is part of that relationship, would Russia fulfill or reneg on its obligation? That’s where a most frightening escalation could be, and the last thing this world needs is an escalation of interational military crisis. This is another dangerous strategy that Obama and US Congress must consider.

“We the people” are not at fault for these illegal wars against sovereign Mid East nations. It’s the criminal power brokers within the USA Admin and that counterfeit entity which refers to itself as “Israel”!

Leave a Reply