So, I didn’t want to write about Syria two days ago and I still don’t want to write about it, but it seems odd to pass over the US bombing that started last night when I’ve just spent the last two posts talking about movement and action.
There’s a part of me that hears about the bombing of the airbase and I feel glad. It’s satisfying to know that it’s been destroyed, but then I see the statements from Russia and from Syria and there is a sense of foreboding. Where is this going? Part of me is wondering why, if the US was going to engage with the Syrian government, they didn’t do it years ago. It doesn’t seem likely that they’ll stop after destroying one base. How is this going to affect the people in Syria? I saw one tweet from a Syrian who is deeply grateful, so I’m sure that there are many many people who will be glad at the prospect of the US standing up to Assad.
But there is the issue of Russia. Iraq and Afghanistan weren’t backed by Russia. Makes me feel a bit queasy.
I grew up in a pacifist church. The denomination is called the Brethren in Christ. Many American members of BIC churches have refused in the past to serve in the army as conscientious objectors. I always loved the stories of how these people took their stand for what they believed to be right – refusing to kill – refusing to do anything but try to love their enemies. I do not think that these men (and women?) who took this stand were lauded and appreciated for it. It was not a popular thing to do. Some of them went to prison.
I often think about it, “what if everyone had been a conscientious objector?” Civil disobedience worked well in the civil rights movement – it seems to work well when working against oppression, but what about aggression? What would have happened in Europe in World War II if the Allies had laid down their arms and refused to fight? The answer seems obvious. I think it’s clear.
But on the other hand, a commitment to pacifism is not necessarily a commitment to do nothing and to surrender. There are other forms of resistance. I will be honest that I cannot imagine what an effective resistance might have looked like during WWII. There was the French resistance of course, but I do not think theirs was a non-violent resistance inspired by pacifism.
You need to be under attack to be able to contemplate a resistance of some kind. It’s much harder to resist when you’re across the ocean. It’s much harder to stand with those who resist when there is a great distance.
Going back to the example of my children – it is always much harder to have any productive work towards peace when the fighting and the resentment has already begun. The best and the most fruitful work happens when things are good.
But it’s a long history and I’m not sure how far you’d have to go back to find when things were good in Syria. This civil war began with mostly peaceful protests by the people, and things escalated once the government tried to suppress the demonstrations with violence and imprisonment. What do you do with a tyrant? What do you do with a human who is past the point of empathy? Who is unwilling to listen or to negotiate?
It’s much easier to say “Give peace a chance,” than it is to actually make it happen. It’s easy to look at the air strikes and the bombings and to say that they’re not working or that they’re not leading to anything good…and it really doesn’t seem like they are – not to peace anyway, but when faced with the prospect of trying to come up with some other solution that might actually lead to something good is far far harder.
I can only say with certainty that to give up and to turn away and forget will mean that nothing changes, at least not if that’s what we all do.
***
I started this post in the morning and now I come to it at the end of the day. I offer no answers. I also have read that the base that was bombed wasn’t destroyed. There were Syrian jets that used it today to conduct airstrikes on rebel held areas.
I also heard convincing arguments that the images of people who have died from chemical weapons are so much more affecting than the images of people who have died from non-chemical weapons because news agencies will show them. They don’t show the photographs where people have lost limbs and have been blown to bits. The images of people who have died from chemical weapons may be more moving because we actually see them. The civilian victims of conventional bombing are unseen.
There is much that we don’t see in this world that would move us to despair if we were to see it, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t there. I’m not sure what I’m saying here, except to say that there is much in this world that cannot be solved without years and years and dedicated time and attention. If a night’s bombing serves only to make people feel as if something “has been done” then it is a waste. I don’t know. Maybe there was some value to it.
On the one hand, it seems strange that images of one attack that catch the public’s attention suddenly make people here feel that something must be done after years and years of the same thing. But on the other hand that image of the boy washing up on the beach inspired so many people to pursue refugee sponsorship, and that is a good thing.
The fact that we have begun to care is a good thing. Just because many of us didn’t care adn didn’t even know for so long doesn’t make this wrong. The fact that we have been moved is a start, but we can’t be fooled into thinking that the simple answers will be the ones that make a true difference. Real progress is slow and probably not as satisfying in the short term as seeing a military base destroyed. I know for myself that I stand here feeling pretty powerless, but determined to keep caring, to keep praying and to believe that with God’s guidance and love, that there is hope in this.
