It's Okay Not to Have an Opinion About Syria

Now that President Obama has decided to ask Congress’s permission for military involvement in Syria (article), the same polarized invective with which Americans engage in every public debate has found a new outlet. It is possible, however, not to have a strong opinion about some issues, and Syria seems to me a likely candidate for this treatment.

Since I have a tendency to take an interest in ideas, politics and world events and to speak my mind on them, I’m sure there are some who think, “Man, that guy has an opinion about everything!” But I don’t really. I'm well aware that some issues are so large and complex as to defy definitive analysis leading to one sweeping conclusion for or against.

The war in Afghanistan is a good example of this, even though it now appears that the U.S. will mostly be out by the end of 2014. The debate always seemed to play out--and still does to some extent as the U.S.'s role in future years remains under consideration--between those wanting to stay for many years to come and others crying because we weren’t out yesterday.

But it should be clear to everyone that both of these options are highly problematic, in whichever overseas military action you choose. Staying means more death--of soldiers, of civilians--and, of course, a significant financial burden on the nation. That last is no small matter when there are serious problems at home that could be alleviated with some of the money used for war.

And the problems of leaving are equally clear. To stick with the example of Afghanistan, the return of the Taliban to dominance would be a humanitarian tragedy--think of Aesha Mohammadzai (graphic image) and the many like her--and likely mean the return of Al-Qaeda or similar groups seeking the next 9/11 or Madrid train bombings.

Neither option sounds very good to me, so when I ask myself whether we should stay or leave a country like Afghanistan or Iraq, I have no strong opinion. And that’s okay, not just because I don’t have to make the decisions and don’t have enough information to do so anyway, but because it’s better to think critically than to bleat one’s favorite political narrative.

I do have a modest opinion on Syria--one that I mostly adopted because of French philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy’s arguments for humanist intervention (interview)--and it’s that a no-fly zone early on would have done much to aid the rebels and hasten Bashar al-Assad’s fall.

But it’s too late for that now, isn’t it? Now it’s more of a mess than it was before and I have no idea what Obama or Congress should do about it. Having been at war for well over a decade now, we are all too familiar with the pitfalls of military entanglements, and whatever helps the rebels is likely to benefit some terrorists. But staying out also means the continued slaughter of the Syrian people--slaughter the U.S. and other nations have the power to stop.

So I say consider the situation, and if you see no clear answer, reserve judgment. Sometimes it’s okay, even commendable, for regular people like you and me not to have a firm opinion about everything--and to spare the world a little partisan vituperative.