John McDaid
The
civil war that rose due to simple and peaceful protests during the Arab spring
in 2011 has caused many problems and deaths in Syria. The economy of Syria
before the civil war was very diverse. Agriculture, industry along with
excavation, retail, and tourism made up Syria’s economy. The economy of Syria
was crushed due to the break out of the civil war. Unemployment dropped four
times its original standing. Hospitals were dropping, leaving only 30 of the 75
running and treating patients.
I
believe the self-interest of many Syrians is to get out of their homes and move
on with their life somewhere else. I do not disagree with the two million
people who fled from Syria to Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, and Iraq. I think that
the self-interest of the country has been lost for most Syrians. I wouldn’t
call this a selfish move in any way because of how bad Syria is at this moment.
Chemical warfare in Syria killed 1,429 people, which included 426 children. Of
the hospitals that are still working and treating people, 3,600 patients were
treated with neurotoxic symptoms. Homes being destroyed, people being
killed/injured, and huge amounts of hospitals closing are sure signs that I
believe will and obviously have triggered the feeling of self-interest in the
minds of many Syrians.
Self-interest
doesn’t always have to be selfish. The United States in their action must
choose a side. Whether they choose to be inactive and not help the people or if
they want to be active and help the people, the decision will nonetheless, be
one of self-interest. Mill uses the example of democratizing Syria, as a
possible solution to its problems. Mill explains that turning Syria’s
government into a democracy is not the one and only solution to solving Syria’s
problems. However the United States government will like the people of America
to believe that because it is in their interest to have a democracy in Syria.
There has been democratizing failures of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, that
could affect the decision of pursuing a goal of democratizing Syria. Syria
could very well be a democratizing failure along with them, or could be a goal
accomplished. It is in the self-interest of the United States to get involved
and fix the problems that Syria had created for itself or to let Syria
suffocate in the hole that will eventually collapse on top of its head.
Intervening
with Syria sparks the thought of self-interest. There is the thought of
self-interest in the minds of fleeing Syrian’s and also in the minds of United
States people in whether of not to intervene and find a solution that will help
Syria out of the mess that they are in.
As you note, the situation in Syria is very sad. You refer to the many statistics from the reading and show their emotional weight (be careful here that you do not get in the habit of summarizing too much--although I know that you are referring to the reading here, you don't want to fall into paraphrasing without directly citing in order to get your writing started).
ReplyDeleteYou raise some very compelling questions in the later paragraphs: is it self-interest that drives our talk of intervention? Does that matter? Can we intervene out of self-interest and still do good?
Another questions is: does it matter here if it is self-interested? If the intervention would work, shouldn't we do it? If it wouldn't work, shouldn't we avoid it? Alternatively, some have argued that whether we think we are doing good or not is irrelevant: the US should follow the UN and other international partners and not act alone. So there are many different considerations here, obviously, and they interact with self-interest in telling ways.