INDIGNATION is a submission of our thoughts, but not our desires. These words from philosopher Bertrand Russell sprang to mind over the weekend as my social media feeds heaved with righteous anger against Donald Trump for launching missile strikes against Syrian government targets.
I was as surprised as everyone else at the speed by which the US president appeared to reverse his foreign policy direction from isolationist to interventionist, and in common with just about every other public pronouncement he has made in the last two years, I found both the content and delivery of his reasoning to be crass, confused and, at times, downright strange.
But if I’m honest I have no idea whether the strikes, said by Mr Trump to be in retaliation for chemical attack on civilians last week, is the right course of action or not. Will it help the brutalised people of Syria or make things even worse for them? The question makes my head hurt; the situation in Syria is so mindbogglingly wretched and complex that it could perceivably do both. Indeed, doubt and uncertainty are sometimes the only sureties in this theatre of villains.
After listening to an hour-long discussion on the radio where two former ambassadors to Syria calmly, articulately argued opposing views on the US strikes, I am no further forward. With this in mind, I have an admission to make: for the first time ever I can see two sides of a Trump policy.
I would imagine many folk feel similarly perplexed and overwhelmed by the enormousness of the tragedy in Syria, still no closer to a resolution despite countless UN resolutions and broken ceasefires. That’s the reason I was so surprised that so many people on my Facebook feed seemed so sure Mr Trump’s actions would bring about World War Three. I’m certainly no Trump fan, but the tone of some of this stuff was depressingly over the top and horribly full of glee as these armchair Middle East experts got stuck in with half-baked truths wrapped in the sort of zeal you’d instantly close the door on if it came knocking with a religious leaflet.
It reminded me of UKIP’s pre-EU referendum campaign and Mr Trump’s own hideous drive for the presidency. Such extreme fervour rarely makes for coherent political discourse, of course, but what concerns me most is the fact that normally quite sensible people seem all too willing to swallow conspiracy theories, historical inaccuracy and use the suffering of Syrians to point score against a president they don’t like.
Social media all but entreats us to take part in such behaviour, of course, to have an opinion and share it, to see things only in black and white, to unquestioningly “like” the posts of people we already agree with, to position ourselves in self-absorbed silos that blunt our critical faculties.
Now, however, in these strangest, most unsettling of times we must surely be wary of unquestioning loyalty to any position or cause. We have to try and stay sharp – and that means not only allowing ourselves to have doubt and uncertainty about opinions and positions held by ourselves and others, but encouraging and even welcoming the inquiry that comes with it. Without it, we risk becoming just as zealous as the zealots.
And sometimes that will mean allowing yourself to agree – if only partially - with people you normally despise. Even Donald Trump. That’s not to say I condone his missile strikes in Syria. It’s just that I don’t know that I outright condemn them either.
Speaking of Syria - and Mr Trump - I will end on a quote borrowed from the bible, by way of Pulp Fiction: “The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men.” Depressingly relevant doesn’t even cover it.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel