If Syria Why Not America? What's Being Learned from Syria

“This message came to me concerning Damascus: ‘Look, Damascus will disappear! It will become a heap of ruins. The cities of Aroer will be deserted. Sheep will graze in the streets and lie down unafraid. There will be no one to chase them away. The fortified cities of Israel will also be destroyed, and the power of Damascus will end. The few left in Aram will share the fate of Israel’s departed glory,’ says the Lord Almighty.” -- Isaiah 17:1-3 (NLT) 

        Over the last twelve months I have found the Syrian civil war more disconcerting than nearly anything else happening around the world; and there is plenty disturbing happening around the world presently. Primarily because I have long been familiar with so-called "end times prophecies" from a variety of sources, studied them for years (along with others -- Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, et al.) True or false, important or entirely irrelevant, there have been times in my life when I find the endeavor to be entertaining. Being familiar with the above passage that specifically predicts the destruction of Damascus at some point in the future does tend to give one pause considering today's events in Syria. I've always wondered why more people have not brought this up. We are after all seeing this particular prophecy play out right before our eyes, as we've seen so many in succession over the last sixty years. All we need now is "a peace deal between Israel and Palestine brokered by a powerful charismatic world leader"... and we've got all the makings for what the christian bible calls "the end times". There isn't much more we are waiting for. But we shall see. I tend not to give this stuff too much credence. If the times during the Dark Ages or the Black Plague or World War I and II weren't "end times" I don't know what is.
          But that's not what this is about. This whole Syrian crisis has had me thinking for some time. First and foremost, though perhaps I've stated it publicly a few times already, nowhere in context and permanent, like some and unlike others, I find the idea that the United States of America should get involved in this latest civil war in Syria to be a preposterous notion. So much so that I don't even believe that the reasons for feeling this way need to be listed or defended. If anything, the fact that certain members of the American government -- and especially the American media -- are even discussing the possibility is shameful and ludicrous. 
        The United States of America does not currently have enough money to help fix, upgrade or even maintain its aging infrastructure around the country, doesn't have enough money for high speed rail, or to provide superior education to its citizenry, nor guarantee food, shelter or health care to its poor and middle class, but it mysteriously has enough money to provide weapons and artillery to aid a growing horde of ragtag Islamic militias attempting to overthrow the Syrian government half way around the world. At least this is the message being blasted all over the world by the American government. "We must find ways to immediately reduce entitlement programs for the middle class or face inevitable bankruptcy soon down the road. But we have begun to support various rebel forces in Syria." It's a strange time to be alive on planet earth. Especially if you happen to live in America. For history buffs who have always been fascinated by and pondered what living in the last few years of the ancient Roman Empire felt like, they're lucky in that living in America today probably looks and feels very similar. Of course some will argue with this proposition; but one gets the feeling that they're the same folks who don't immediately choke from laughing too hard when they hear the term "american exceptionalism". Kool Aid guzzled. 
        Over the weekend we heard this quote: "It's shameful how Syrian president Assad has destroyed that beautiful ancient country", so said U.S. national security adviser Tom Donilon. He said it as straight faced as can be, as if Assad himself started a random war and rebel forces didn't start a revolution to overthrow the government there. It compelled me yet again to consider how interesting it would be to see the exact same thing happen in the United States. How would the United States government handle such an event? How would the citizens of the United States feel? Would Obama, Bush, Clinton or the U.S. Congress give up their jobs and step down just because a few hundred citizens grabbed some guns, marched through the streets and demanded they do?
         I proposed the question on Facebook, Tumblr and Twitter over the weekend. As always the posts were controversial and garnered much discussion and debate. As always I learned. Someone asked a simple question, "So what you're saying then is that the uprising in Syria is not legitimate?" To which I responded: "Ah hah! See, that's the point isn't it? That it's more a series of questions than a statement. What IS a "legitimate" uprising? Can there be such a thing? Isn't an uprising "illegitimate" by its very nature and definition? 
         I'm all for people's revolutions -- toward more democratic systems. But its all so subjective. Consider the U.S. government's official view of the Iranian revolution; a glorious and celebrated peoples' revolution, against Western dictatorial control through an unwanted installed monarchy. One of the most respected and admired peoples' revolutions in the East. Peaceful and passionate and people led. But because the American government didn't approve it or authorize it, they still to this day demonize the country of Iran for doing it. Going so far as to send CIA trained Saddam Hussein and his Iraqi military in to invade Iran a year later as a means to conquer the country yet again. THAT revolution was evidently NOT legitimate. But for some reason Libya's and Egypt's and Syria's is. 
        Playing more devils advocate here re Syria, because no one really knows what the hell is going on nor how to resolve it. This is more of a learning moment than anything else. IS Obama, like Assad, supposed to step down if a few thousand demand he does and take up arms and attack? Or will he attack back using the might of the US military and rally the people and other nations to come to his aid to "support the American government"?  Of course it wouldn't happen here. At least not without a very long bloody battle. 
       Look at America's Civil War. All those states attempted to do just that. And this wasn't just a few hundred or thousand people. These were whole militias comprised of unified States of the American country; but from the very beginning told that they were going to be forced to stay part of the union or be attacked and shut down one way or the other. Fascinating stuff. So much to think about. It really all seems to depend on what the powers in control (the so called G8 countries) say about the sitting government and the so called "rebels" of whatever particular country we are speaking about. THEY determine how any revolution is perceived i.e. whether it's legitimate or not.  
        My original point is that you can't blame the destruction of Syria on Assad. He didn't start this war. He's just defending "what he believes is" the government and status quo. Rightly or not. And I am curious about how it would be perceived and play out if it happened in the States. Or the UK. Or Germany. Or France. Or any Western nation.
         Some one else commented that "What is not legitimate is that Assad used snipers to shoot down peaceful protestors, right back at the start of this thing. That may have led to the uprising that followed; but without outside intervention, I doubt if that uprising would still be going. Early in the 'revolution', the rebels were receiving arms that were said to be captured weapons from Iraq and Afghanistan, that were said were being supplied by the U.S. government, channeled through Turkey. Israel and the USA have had a hand in the de-stabilisation of Syria."
        Again, have we proof of this? Does it affect our original question? It's still interesting.
        Another commented,  "I can't believe you're overlooking the fact that there hasn't been a legitimate election in Syria in the forty years that the Assad family has been in power. You can't compare Syria to the USA simply because we have a working system to elect a new leader every four years, hence no need for a civilian overthrow."
        I found this to be a rather short-sighted comment lacking a basic understanding of how hijacked the American political system is and has been for decades. And I wasn't alone. Another user chimed in:
        "That's a bit naïve; when you realise that both candidates from the major parties in America are bought and paid for by corporate sponsorship, usually the same corporations finance both campaigns. You get to vote every four years for which puppet will be on the stage next, while the corporates and banksters pull the strings."
        "Oh, I see. So that makes Syria and US even on the democratic level. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up." The conversation began to get heated.
        Someone else got involved. "Fishy, Syria should worry u. It is ground zero for World War III. But, 1, please see my article re your Zimmerman post, and 2, It is legit in that, according to a number of Sunni Syrian friends I have who I trust perfectly, before the revolution, Assad was just killing people willy nilly and people lived in terror...And that has been their life since the father Hafez Al Assad ..... What Syria and Zimmerman have in common is the people in control, at the top, 1, create the problem, and 2, then "offer the solution"..."
          Another: "I am not making any strict comparison between Syria and the USA. But I have to wonder how many years it has been since there was a legitimate election in the USA? Do you think you get what you voted for? Do you think the current President has lived up to the promises he made in his first campaign, or his second? Do you really think that just swapping parties every now and then in a two-party system, is real democracy? I don't normally comment on Syria because I don't have all the details of what goes on there, in this civil war. It's a horrible situation for the Syrian people. Supplying more weapons to either side will not relieve the situation, it will only make it worse."
         I think we can all agree on that. At least those who are sane.
         Then a near immediate response. (And THIS is why I love not only the Personal Expression Age, but especially the social media aspect of it). "Those are a lot of questions that neither of us have an answer to, but I do know what I witness and in my entire life I have witnessed a peaceful transition of events, whether by puppet parties or not, each and every election, where the opposing candidates don't meet at a battlefield but a television studio for a debate, where even in the wake of Presidential resignations and threats of impeachments there's a process in place in this system of government and it never involves the violent reaction or murder of innocent people, and just for that, there is no basis of comparison that Fishy made, nor you, between the USA and Syria. I don;t see that as the least bit naive, just realistic."
        The only problem I see with this comment, as well meaning as it is, is that we have seen countless "violent murders of innocent people" over the last fifty years, from U.S. presidents to security personnel, government employees and whistle blowers, peace activists, American citizens... on and on... only getting worse as the years wear on. And thus responded:
        "All of you make an excellent point. In all your comments. I use social media as a learning tool. Without that aspect of it, I dare say I'd never go on here at all. I always learn more from posting something than I knew going in. I believe that your point about "the peaceful transition" is a valid one and it does make it hard to make a legitimate comparison. BUT many of the other points are equally valid and intriguing, fact based and in reality. We don't really know anymore what a true democracy is like in the United States -- especially not compared to the UK or France or Denmark or Sweden et al. where they have multiple parties that can run in elections etc. In the U.S. there's really no sense in any third or fourth party running. The media won't even let them be a part of the conversation. (plus 50 other things we could bring up obviously...) So in that respect we are a lot more like Iran or Syria than we may realize. Sad but true.
        Which takes me back to my original point: What would the U.S. government DO and want the world to THINK and DO if the same thing happened here as is happening in Syria? Would it be considered a legitimate people's protest or revolution? Would the Obama/Bush/Clinton admin step down peacefully? Or -- like in the 60s and 70s -- would they just send police and militia out in the streets and beat people up, shoot at them and arrest them all? And what if we kept coming at them? With more people -- ala Syria or Tienanmen Square? Would they THEN step down? Or would the administration just keep coming on TV announcing it is "doing our best to put down these violent rebels among us and bring peace and stability back to our nation"... just as Assad is doing...?
        I am curious to contemplate what the rest of the American people would do in such a case... Would they join in the struggle to bring down the tyrants in the White House? Or would they kowtow to whatever government was in place just to stay safe? How is this any different than what is happening in Syria today? Would we as American's WANT help from other nations outside? THAT all depends on which side we were on...
        Wow... So true that it's eerie! In my humble opinion, this is exactly what is happening in Syria right now. The difference? The U.S. wants Assad to go. So THEY brand THAT as the "right thing" and the revolution/civil war to be legitimate, and even worth "supporting". Russia, China, Iran and other equally sovereign world powers around the world support and defend the Syrian government's right to stay in power and are advocating a more democratic transition. Isn't that what the American government would want if the people took up arms against it? A peaceful democratic transition? I'd guess so. Again, I'm not "saying" anything here. I'm not pro or against anything in Syria (except the U.S. staying the hell OUT). I am just fascinated by the whole event and am noticing some real learning moments...