Think about these events:
Event One:
In 1992, the
United States sent its military to help deliver food to the people of Somalia
(a country in western Africa). One of the leaders of Somalia did not like that
foreign soldiers were challenging his power, and as a result, he attacked them with rocket propelled grenades and road bombs. Because of this, the U.S. military
sent a mission to capture this leader. By the end of the conflict, however, forty-two
American soldiers had been killed, and many more wounded.
Event Two:
In July,
1995, a group of Dutch troops in Bosnia failed to defend Bosnians who were
being attacked by Serbian soldiers. These soldiers eventually killed over 8,000
Bosnian people, mostly men and boys.
Event Three:
This year, Britain,
France, other European countries, and the United States used air strikes
against Libya (a country in northern Africa) when the Libyan government was
committing acts of violence against its own civilians. In part because of this help,
the Libyan leader was removed from power and the violence against Libyans
ended.
Event Four:
Over the past
eight months, the country of Syria has experienced protests by civilians and
others to remove the current leader and government from power. The Syrian government has responded with
violence, including the beating and killing of unarmed protestors.*
In light of just these few examples of military intervention in other countries, should NATO or individual countries intervene in Syria? Are we morally obliged to end violence against civilians, even at the cost of our own lives and resources?
*Human Rights Watch. “Syria: ‘Shoot to
Kill’ Commanders Named.” New York: 15
December 2011. Web. 19 December 2011.
Comments
Post a Comment