A few weeks ago I wrote about the conflict in Egypt and how Christians should think about it. Since then, the conflict in Syria, to which I alluded in my last article, has blown up into a full-on international crisis and our nation has found itself on the brink of war, looking, ironically, to Russia for a way out. This is an altogether more serious matter than Egypt’s civil war. As before, how should Christians think about all these things?
First of all, consider some relevant information. In March 2011 dissenters began demonstrating for democratic reforms in Syria. Bashar al-Assad’s tyrannical regime responded the way most tyrannical regimes respond to opposition: badly. By April things had spiraled out of control and rebel forces began a siege of Daara. Over the next several weeks the violent tensions gradually escalated into a full scale civil war which has claimed the lives of tens of thousands of mostly civilians, with millions more displaced.
Jonathan Waits
|
Here, however, is where things begin to get complicated. The Syrian opposition forces, while initially secular and pro-democratic, soon began to take on a more radical nature. Reports surfaced that they were infiltrated and corrupted by Islamists and specifically by members of Al-Qaeda. Additional reports suggested that rebel groups were actively targeting Christian communities which were innocent in the conflict. It became increasingly difficult for outsiders to determine which rebels were which. This was put on display when Arizona Senator John McCain, an outspoken supporter of the rebel movement from the beginning, was photographed with rebel leaders later revealed to be jihadists rather than secularists as first thought.
In August 2012 — nearly a year and a half after the conflict began — President Obama gave a speech in which he declared that the use of chemical weapons would be a red line which, once crossed, would necessitate U. S. military engagement. Then, in the early part of this year, international monitoring forces detected evidence that chemical weapons had in fact been used. By spring videos surfaced of people — mostly women and children — dying from what appeared to be chemical weapons attacks. U. S. officials blustered but did nothing. Finally last month even more graphic videos surfaced and traces of Sarin nerve gas were found. The problem is that while most fingers are pointing at Assad as the culprit in the attack there has not been presented irrefutable evidence about the source of the order to use the weapons. In the meantime it has become clear that rebel forces are thoroughly corrupted by Islam-ists and that Al-Qaeda is a primary player.
Amid all this storm and chaos and with his own red line having been crossed at least twice with no action, President Obama has brought the option of U. S. military involvement to the table. Yet in what capacity? What exactly is the plan? To date there has been no clear description of what exactly U. S. military commanders hope to accomplish by our involvement.
A military strike that is about little more than preserving U. S. image in the world would undoubtedly cause much more harm than good. Surely if Assad was the source of the chemical weapons attack he is a war criminal and deserves appropriate punishment. But with Iran, China and Russia lining up behind Assad, the international implications of a strike against Syrian governmental forces are troubling.
Furthermore, by announcing early vague intentions for some sort of military action — possibly over the objections of Congress — and inviting the world community to take part in a dialogue over whether and of what nature that action should take, Assad has been given ample opportunity to make it such that any attacks on strategic locations will be as destructive of innocents as possible.
And there is the matter of who exactly we would be supporting in such an attack. The secular, pro-democratic forces are no longer the controlling faction in the rebel army. By militarily opposing the Assad regime we would find ourselves facing the deeply ironic situation of fighting on the side of Al-Qaeda. Simply helping the rebels win at this point is asking for an Al-Qaeda-run state. And for our purposes we must not tune out the voices of Syrian Christians who uniformly insist that to support the rebels in any way is to oppose them.
So then, what is the proper course forward? Obviously this situation has reached the place of being nearly hopelessly complicated. Appeals to follies surrounding our entrance into war in Iraq and Afghanistan are largely irrelevant. Strong, clear, vision-oriented leadership is absolutely necessary here and we have not as of yet seen that from our governmental leaders.
I for one believe that a military strike without objectives which are infinitely clearer than anything I have heard to date would be folly. It does not seem that starting a war here would satisfy the criteria of the Just War Theory and by most accounts such action would put our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ directly in harm’s way. This, as Christians, we cannot abide.
While the intricacies of international diplomacy, particularly when there are several bad faith actors on the stage, are fraught with difficulties, no one denies that there are millions of displaced and suffering people as a result of the conflict. Perhaps we could start by being the loudest and most active advocate to relieve their suffering.
This could then be paired with a clear, compelling vision for a new Syrian government that respects the rights of all Syrians.
While this situation shows all the potential of getting worse before it gets better, these two steps would be a good place to start.
Jonathan Waits ([email protected]) is pastor of Central Baptist Church in Church Road, Va.