Writing Prompt: Today's chief complaint
I can't tell who to believe, or how much context is missing.
This potential strike on Syria - is it the right thing to do? As a
friend pointed out today, killing a dog for fur to line the collar of a coat and calling it fox
doesn't make it more bad than using real fox fur. Because it was a chemical weapon
and not a bomb, or shower of bullets, is that reason enough for our country to kill more people, possibly families, in pursuit of some
sort of justice? Are we just trying to assert our ultimate authority on
the world stage?
Part of me thinks, "yes, we have to do something." But you
know, that part of me knows nothing of war (thank god). "Doing
something" sounds a lot easier when it's in the abstract. But there is
nothing abstract about murder. I heard NPR reporters interviewing people
yesterday who said that the UN inspectors had solid evidence that
chemical weapons were used. They said over 1,400 people, including over
400 children died. This is unconscionable. But why are we intervening in
Syria and we left Sudan alone? What about The Congo? There have been
mass genocides going on for the last decade, for years, forever really.
Why are we more likely to "intervene" (bomb) Syria than Sudan? What do
they have that we want?My chief complaint is that I can't trust the chief. I can't tell who is telling which half truths and how bad the lies are. I can't recognize the lies, but I know they are being told. If there's one thing I've learned as an adult is that we are never told the entire story by politicians, and leaders, and those wielding a great deal of power. In fact, it's so bad that the level of deceit is hard to fathom. It calls into question all the principles I was raised believing.