So we've been hearing about this tiny country in the middle east for the past two years now. It seemed as though we didn't care for it before. We didn't care for the fact that it had a dictator. We didn't care that it had no democracy. We simply wanted to keep it happy so it wouldn't become another Afghanistan where anti-american sentiment would grow and breed a new Al-Qaeda. And now we care for what actually happens in this country half way around the world. But why?
Well the answer may be found in ether Mandeville or Smith. I prefer to talk from what I think Smith might say. Mandeville in all his dickheadedness would probably say that we want to set America up to exploit what we can out of Syria, or make ourselves look good in front of the world, or keep from looking weak, or to just simply get it off our television screens because we don't want to hear about it. In other word we might get something out of it. Smith might say that we have empathy for the Syrian people.
Maybe some of us are picturing what it might be like to live in a city where you can't cross a street without running risk of sniper fire. Maybe some of us can imagine ourselves as a ten year old holding his screaming little sister as the await another bombardment to pass. Maybe some of us imagine ourselves as the woman who had to carry her teenage son to a hospital with a sucking chest wound. Maybe some of us could see our faces in the corpse lying on the street, see the potential that could have been but is now dead. In other words, what if some of us are motivated by empathy to close this bloody book so that way a new, better story could be written for Syria?
As to what exactly we should do is the debate that is currently happening. I will not go into that. I only see it as we want to do something to help the innocent, the truly innocent people in Syria who are caught in a crossfire and can't get out. We see the suffering and with our imagination put ourselves as one of them, feel for them and therefore care for them. At least that's the way I hope we see it.
Jose,
ReplyDeleteIt appears that you and I have similar sentiments regarding America's motives in intervening in the Syrian civil war--they may be for ulterior reasons than simply aiding a hurting nation in need, but, regardless, it is a good thing to do. America must look at this situation more practically than you or I would if, say, we were deciding to hold the door for someone or any other assortment of good deeds. The American government's decisions have an international bearing, and the U.S. aiding Syria will surely be beneficial worldwide.
Cullen Cosco
I enjoyed reading your post. i agree that we need to do something to help the innocent people in Syria. Your third paragraph was very good. The descriptions of the imagination really appeal to a the readers emotions. Great job on this post.
ReplyDeleteI think you hit on an interesting feature of the wars of the last decade. To a unique extent, they are wars of emotion, not wars of strategy or strategic interest. They are Smithian wars. But maybe this is an area where it might actually be less selfish to be more Mandevillean. One argument goes that countries can't be anything but selfish in an international context. That's because a country is just a set of interests. to think otherwise is simply to delude ourselves. The result is the reverse of the invisible hand: we feel we are acting out of empathetic concern, but are really following narrow self-interest (for example: we seem to have an unusual amount of empathy for people in the oil producing region of the world. Meanwhile, 3 million people have died in Africa's "World War" over the past decade, with almost no notice).
ReplyDeleteThere's another take possible here as well: that this is a new breed of war. It's neither based on emotion, or interest, but pure principle. The weird thing here is that the reason for the war is not to harm Assad, nor to help the rebels. It's simply to support the principle that no one use chemical weapons. Of course, many would highly doubt the veracity of such a claim. But an interesting idea nonetheless.