Just days after Secretary of State Rex Tillerson made the ‘shocking’ and ‘outrageous’ comments that the Syrian people should be allowed to choose their leaders, the Trump administration found themselves changing their mind on meddling in the affairs of other countries. It seems the ‘deep state’ is sending a message to the White House that there is no room for principals.
They’re getting the message. Trump is now learning to play the game properly. Expect the harsh media criticism of him and his associates to abate. Not disappear, mind you. It’ll still be there, just not to the degree that we’ve seen from Election Day until now.
Here’s what Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had to say, in part:
“The process by which Assad would leave is something that I think requires an international community effort, both to first defeat ISIS within Syria, to stabilize the Syrian country, to avoid further civil war, and then to work collectively with our partners around the world through a political process that would lead to Assad leaving.”
U.S. media viewers were barraged with video and images of injured, dying, and dead men, women, and children following what the media and government claimed were nerve gas attacks perpetrated by Syrian President Assad.
Without much in the way of investigation, Trump’s now establishment-filled inner circle likely told him that attacking Syria was the only option we have, because we can’t ‘do nothing.’
Most Americans had their heartstrings tugged seeing the horrific images and video footage of children victims. There is absolutely no doubt that whoever was behind those attacks deserves nothing less than a swift execution. We can all agree with that.
But that’s not the issue.
The media used that footage to gin up America’s emotional support for military action. They do that sort of thing whenever there’s a mass shooting, especially one involving children (think Sandy Hook). They use those images and video footage to elicit an emotional response by Americans that justifies harsh gun control. But we all know that gun control is not the answer. That doesn’t mean we don’t care about children, as much as posturing liberals in the media and political arena claim to the contrary (even though they’re the ones who support abortion…go figure).
The issue is why is this the responsibility of the United States? I get that these chemical weapons attacks show the perpetrator – assuming the media is correct that Assad is behind them – to be a brutal dictator with no regard for human life. That doesn’t mean that the United States should invest militarily yet again in another conflict with a Middle Eastern country that has posed no threat to us.
Sudan is one of the worst countries in the world when it comes to human rights violations. Look at how the Human Rights Watch describes them:
Armed conflicts continue between government forces and armed opposition groups, particularly in Darfur, Southern Kordofan and Blue Nile states. Government forces have attacked, killed, and raped civilians and looted and destroyed their property in violation of the laws of war, and forced hundreds of thousands to flee their homes. Authorities arbitrarily detain political activists and subject them to ill-treatment and torture; use unnecessary lethal force against anti-government protesters; and censor the media. Despite these abuses and the International Criminal Court warrant for the arrest of President Omar al-Bashir for crimes in Darfur, the United States and European Union pledged renewed support for the Sudanese government citing cooperation in counterterrorism and migration control.
And that’s not to mention the extreme persecution (murder, rape, slavery) suffered by Sudanese Christians at the hands of the government and government-backed Islamic groups.
So, since the United States is reacting to Assad’s alleged human rights abuses, are we also to do the same with Sudan? When is Trump going to order a military strike against Sudan to ‘send them a message?’ Probably when the media starts flooding their networks with images and video footage of injured, dying, and dead Sudanese Christian men, women, and children in order to gin up America’s emotional support for a war with Sudan. So, probably never.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t want to bomb Sudan. My point is that the United States can’t be this policeman of the world, especially when it’s applied so inconsistently. All of a sudden, our newly appointed cabinet members, even Trump himself, are saying that we can’t just look the other way when Assad commits these atrocities against his own people. So, why is it perfectly fine for use to ‘look the other way’ when it’s another country doing far worse things to their people?
Oh, that’s right. United States politicians don’t actually care. It’s not the supposed murderous actions by Assad that U.S. politicians care about. They just don’t like Assad. He’s standing in the way of the U.S.’s plans. And so far, he has refused to step down. So, the U.S. is upping its game.
Once Assad is gone, U.S. policymakers (or the CIA?) will be able to install a dictator (probably far worse than Assad) who will do the U.S.’s bidding. I know Trump campaigned and won on being an ‘outsider.’ But his administration’s actions this week have shown that they’re now officially insiders.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com