When a conflict seems to spring up from out of nowhere like as had happened during the Arab Spring, the social media seems to be split in half over whether the West should intervene or not. More often then not the response from Western Nations is so sluggish or late that the conflict would already have taken its toll on the masses. However, is intervening and precipitating more violence the right course of action to take?
At the moment we have the United States seeking permission from Congress as to whether they could intervene in the Syria conflict or not, while the British Government has hit a stumbling block on its war ‘proceedings’ due to a vote in parliament against armed intervention. On the other hand, almost mirroring the Libya conflict, the European Union has sought to try resolve the situation through political dialogue.
Why are all these traditionally belligerent nations finding it difficult to partake in the conflict? The reason being that -politically- this situation is not as straightforward as past conflicts have been – the people are -now- not in favor of intervention primarily because whenever the west intervened by means of force the outcome was not one that was one of ‘freedom’ or ‘prosperity’.
In fact quite the opposite. Take the situation in Egypt and Libya as a benchmark that highlights the failed prospects of Western Intervention. In general ceasing hostilities through violence in itself just precipitates even more conflict, both from a political and militaristic standpoint. Potential this may be stemmed if the intervening countries remain to ensure that stability and order are established in the long run.
Obviously, you don’t need a genius to tell you that, but in truth the West -has- actually attempted to do this each time it intervenes. Iraq is the most blatant case in point and in that specific scenario the population saw their would-be ‘heroes’ as nothing more than mumbling conquerors coming to take their land (and oil).
Is diplomacy the way to go then? Of course not. Armed conflict should always be used as a last resort, but once that ‘red line’ is crossed there should be no hesitation in deploying troops to cease hostilities and human rights breeches. The problem lies with the fact that the world points their finger to the West, namely America, to intervene in every conflict that springs up. Strangely enough the majority just so happen to be oil rich countries.
The reason why Western intervention has always proved fruitless especially in the Middle East has primarily been the fact that our cultures are so miles apart from each other that we end up sowing animosity between us. Therefore, it should be left up to the Arab league or maybe even Russia to intervene, but not the U.S.A or Europe. If the Arab league were to react, a far more positive response would be shown by the Syrian people after the dust has settled due in part to their culture similarities and common religious identity. Whether they would want to join the conflict is another matter entirely.
Unfortunately, the West -will- most probably try to get themselves involved in the ‘festivities’ in Syria whilst also feeding their troops’ heads with the promise of going to another ‘exotic’ destination. This will result in their army’s expenditure increasing and creating more financial woes, it will result in a ‘conquered’ Syria with more problems possibly springing up, and it will precipitate more violence in the long run.