Tomorrow is the 50th Anniversary of The March on Washington.
It's sadly ironic that as we remember and celebrate that historic turning point, we're also contemplating military action against the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad. Dr. King stood steadfastly against violence, no matter what. The bastard Assad gassed his own people as a show of strength, to maintain power and control. Two distinctly different methods of conflict resolution.
The pressure is on America to "do something". A line has been crossed. Many say U.S. military action against Syria is inevitable. Our warships are in place, missiles ready to strike.
Which road to take? Is there anything resembling a good option?
What Assad did is barbaric, inhumane, cowardly. He should hang by his balls in the pit of hell. But while launching a few rockets at Syria might feel good, it will only make things worse. It won't kill Assad, it won't make him leave, and it won't destroy all their chemical weapons. It will only incite violence and extremism in the most unstable region in the world. The spill-over possibilities are frightening. It's highly risky business.
America cannot be a super-hero enforcer. We are not the world's cop. We cannot right every wrong, and there are endless wrongs to choose from. We must be judicious. Is military intervention in Syria, now, worth the downside risk? What do we possibly hope to accomplish? Are there any alternatives?
Any?
What do you think Dr. King would do? I think he'd counsel patience, perseverance, and massive doses of diplomacy, sanctions, embargoes and blockades -- the sanctions for Syria and a global diplomatic full-court press aimed squarely at Russia and China, Syria's only remaining "allies", and even they cannot defend the indefensible.
Martin would push a peaceful solution, not the "launch" button. We should not lose sight of the man's message and his legacy.
