Thanks to social media, Aleppo has recently become the worldwide symbol for downtrodden victims of war. A major stronghold for anti-government forces, Aleppo has been the site of intense combat since 2012. For most of 2016, anti-government forces have been under siege in the east side of the city. Air strikes by the Assad government and the Russians have destroyed substantial parts of the city, as well as wounded and killed many civilians. On the other hand, counter attacks and artillery bombardments by anti-government forces have also contributed to the decimation of the city and its population. In other words…it’s war.
Aleppo has been called Syria’s Stalingrad, and for good reason. Like Stalingrad, there is a feeling of an impending winner-take-all situation for whoever is victorious. The length and intensity of fighting is also similar, with a relatively high rate of civilian casualties. The recent and relentless aerial bombardment by government and Russian forces is also reminiscent of the unabashed bombing of Stalingrad by the Luftwaffe. Having said that, there are stark contrasts between Aleppo and Stalingrad; most of which are related to the difference in the global power structure of our modern time.
For one thing, the Battle of Aleppo is considerably smaller in scale, despite the existence of much more sophisticated weaponry. For all the bellyaching of the mass media, and their constant whining over civilian casualties, the total fatalities of Aleppo amount to probably less than 5% of the total fatalities of Stalingrad. There are also many more factions involved in the battle for Aleppo. Furthermore, many outside powers are considerably more involved in the Syrian conflict than ever existed in Stalingrad. Lastly, and possibly most important, there was no United Nations at the time Stalingrad was fought.
The last two points are very important because of the overall negative effect the U.N. has on such conflicts. The U.N. gives almost all parties an equal voice. It also gives veto power to both sides of opposition within the greater conflict (the United States and Russia). Thusly, the U.N. has a tendency to prolong conflicts by trying to moderate them. It could easily be argued that if the U.N. simply let conflicts continue no-holds-barred, one side would win and less lives might be lost in the long run. In situations where survival of the fittest would otherwise rule, the U.N. repeatedly props up the underdog.
In this particular situation, the underdog happens to be Syria’s anti-government forces and the hapless civilians they use as shields. The U.N. accuses the Russians and Syrian government of human rights violations because they are official entities. It is more difficult to attach the same violations to anti-government forces, regardless of the fact they are equally as “guilty.” Part of this is due to the fact the anti-government groups are basically loosely affiliated militias, tribes, and terrorist groups. However, as a somewhat prestigious member of the U.N., Russia is forced to “listen” to its demands.
Russia’s recent halt in the aerial bombardment indicates it is either heeding the U.N. warnings of human rights violations or it is simply regrouping in order to strategize. More than likely, it is a combination of both. What Russia should do is bomb the so-called rebels into the ground. Civilians should never be deliberately targeted, but collateral damage should be expected in warfare. Tragic though it may be, it is simply part of modern war. The alternative is letting the enemy live another day and thusly, letting civilians suffer an extra day of war. By constantly pressuring ceasefires, the U.N prolongs the conflict and the overall suffering of all parties involved.
Major General William Tecumseh Sherman said, “War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.” He was absolutely right. Americans better start realizing what Aleppo truly symbolizes: total war. The media can show all the photos they want of scarred up little boys in a war-torn land. Unfortunately, that little boy is only one of millions in his local conflict. He is one of billions in global conflicts. And he is one of trillions in the earth’s history of global conflicts. Overall, the Battle of Aleppo is quite unremarkable.
If you are one of the pansies who think the Battle of Aleppo is bad, you should study the Bombing of Guernica or the Siege of Leningrad sometime. Then again, maybe you should not; it might destroy your flowery view of humanity and make you cry. There was no international committee to cite either side for war crimes or human rights violations. Quite simply, there were two sides in an all-out battle for survival. When it was concluded, there was a clear winner and loser. And when the battle war over, it was over.
~AD
Share This:
