|image from http://fcnl.org/issues/syria/|
I am not saying we should do nothing, but there are infinite options between "do nothing" and "send the missiles". Are we really so unimaginative as a people that the only solution we can come up with is "limited" missile strikes?
It is an incredibly complicated, and tragic, situation. I don't have the answers, at all, as I'm sure you know. Yes, I'd love to see Assad out of office/power. But I feel like we keep trying the same thing(s) over and over again, expecting new results -- you know, Einstein's definition of insanity. When's the last time the United States went into another country with our guns ablazin' and made anything better in any lasting way? Doing "limited" strikes and expecting that to do good seems like magical thinking. Also (groan if you must), this feels like what they call in the business "a technical solution to an adaptive problem". I mean, we got rid of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden... is Iraq suddenly in great shape? Has terrorism or Al Qaeda gone away? It seems like we continue to create voids to be filled by other problematic leaders/leadership. Something more profound is required.
The Religious Society of Friends (the Quakers) have some interesting points and ideas at the FCNL site. As the Friends say, "War Is Not the Answer". But then, what is? They tackle that, too, on this page.
Here is a page of resources on possible war with Syria created by Andover Newton Theological School's Assistant Professor of Christian Ethics, M.T. Dávila.
May we find the wisdom to find a better way.