This Week’s Top Five: June 8-14

Five things to know from around the globe this past week:

1. The Turkish riots are getting worse.

• At the end of May, the initially student led protests against the destruction of a park in Istanbul escalated quickly into violent, national riots against the Turkish government. The Prime Minister of Turkey is doing very little to cooperate with the protesters and has not eased up on the heavy use of tear gas and water cannons. Negotiations are pretty much at a halt. You can read the background on this uprising from our post from last week:  https://whythefshouldicare.wordpress.com/2013/06/06/protests-in-turkey/

2. Syria was struck by another fatal bombing.

• The Syrian uprising is now moving into its third year of clashes between Syrian rebels and the Syrian government lead by Bashar al Assad. The UN recently reported that almost 93,000 people have been killed as a result of the uprising. And this week, we discovered that the Syrian government has allegedly been using chemical weapons on the Syrian rebels, now causing a US decision to send military aid to the Syrian rebels. See a detailed timeline of the uprising at the Washington Post’s website. (http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/world/timeline-unrest-in-syria/207/)

3. 17 people were killed in an suicide bombing attack on Afghan Supreme Court employees.

• While several of Afghanistan’s Supreme Court employees were being transported by bus through Kabul on Wednesday, a suicide bomber attacked the vehicle fatally injuring 17 people on board. Although Kabul and Afghanistan as a whole are rife with frequent, deadly attacks, this one sticks out because of the targets. This story is still developing, but you can read more about the attack in Aljazeera’s report: (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2013/06/2013611121733644409.html)

4. Putin got divorced. (This happened at the end of last week, but we’ll still throw it in).

• Even though this would seem to be a pretty big story (a major world leader is getting a divorce after almost 30 years of marriage), it is in fact a story out of how little attention it’s been getting. The Putins announced this split on national television shortly after an event they were attending together, and the divorce is extremely amicable. On top of that, as the Washington Post points out in this hilariously titled article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russians-shrug-at-putin-divorce/2013/06/07/0fc0ef42-cf81-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html, the Russian people don’t find it to be all that important. This is a big news item because of how small a news item it’s become.

5. Iran is electing a new president.

• For the first time since 2005, Iran has a shot at a leader who isn’t Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This election is also being considered the most democratic, fair (and unrigged) election Iran has ever had, and it could be a major turning point for the country both nationally and globally. The election is being held TODAY and Iran has already extended poll closing times to give more people the opportunity to vote. Check our post from earlier this week for more info (https://whythefshouldicare.wordpress.com/2013/06/13/iranian-presidential-election-2013/)

Iranian Presidential Election 2013

What is happening: 

Tomorrow, Iran is going to have an national election for their next president, which is being considered a turning point. Since 2005, the country has been headed up by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a previous mayor of Iran’s capital, Tehran, and only the sixth ever president of this nation. Ahmadinejad is globally known for his vehement hostility towards countries such as the United States and the UK and has not been received very well in his home country for these beliefs, as well as human rights abuses and a poor economic standing nationally. Now, you may be thinking, “how has such an unpopular guy managed to win two terms in a row?” Well, my friends, he used an ancient technique that has been utilized by numerous powerful leaders for centuries upon centuries: cheating. Yep, that’s right, Ahmadinejad used his presidential powers to fudge the numbers in his most recent election back in 2009. Although this hasn’t been officially confirmed by the Iranian government, it’s fairly safe to say that there was a abundant amount of vote rigging 4 years ago that managed to cause huge national, and international protests.

“Who rigs elections AND abuses his people? This guy!” (kattiemay.ru)

The reason why this information is relevant and why exactly this election is getting so much attention is because this generally unpopular leader who has finagled his way into a second term, cannot run for president this election season (due to term limits). For the first time since the election in 2005, Iranians have a shot at a fair election and a chance to elect a president to represent their nation more positively on a global scale, as well as creating a better environment with Iran itself.

Why you should care: 

As we mentioned earlier, Ahmadinejad is not America’s biggest fan, and the US definitely is not a big proponent of his. Whether it’s through United Nations sanctions or just general speech and press, the United States makes it obvious that is no friend to Iran. But when we critically look at where this animosity stems from, it really goes back to rhetoric from Iran’s past leaders and oligarchs, not necessarily the views of the Iranian population or the Iranian people in general. Americans may not, as a whole, see completely eye-to-eye with Iranians, but this hostility doesn’t really need to exist. It’s just based on the views of the leaders whose voices could be heard the easiest.

Yeah, we did that (www.alarab.co.uk)

And that is why you should care. With Iran seizing an opportunity to elect a leader with less animosity towards the Western world, the United States is also given a chance at an unprecedented neutral relationship with Iran’s government. To say that the US and Iran have a shot at a positive symbiotic relationship would be hyperbole, but there is a chance that they could dissolve the extreme hostility they’ve maintained for years. This could mean dropping sanctions, more oil through opening up trade, and just a better relationship with the Middle East as a whole. It is still a long shot to have THIS good of a relationship, but with a new president elect coming in tomorrow, there’s a lot of hope for a more positive relationship with Iran.

Where you can read more: 

HufPo’s 5 Things To Know About This Election: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/09/iran-presidential-election-5-things-to-know_n_3412334.html?utm_hp_ref=iran-election-2013

Interesting Read on Iran’s Presidential Vetting Process: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/05/201352395840316274.html

AWESOME Graphic on the Presidential Candidates: http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/world/who-will-be-irans-new-president/174/

Protests in Turkey

What is happening:

It all started less than two weeks ago with a demonstration you would think would only ever make the local news. In the metropolitan capital of Turkey, Istanbul, the Turkish government was in the midst of planning for a new “urban development project” to be placed where the current Taksim Gezi Park stands. Not totally surprisingly because Istanbul is already a highly urbanized city, a sit-in protest at the park involving mostly college students began. Should have been your typical young-person-protecting-the-environment demonstration, right?

Two days later though, escalating the situation in a zero to sixty manner, police commenced using tear gas and water cannons to attack the non-violent protest of 100. The police also went on to burn down the demonstrators things and tents. All of this being the first formal effort to get the activists out of the park.

Bandanas and clapping totally seem tear gas deserving to me. (kplr11.com)

Of course, after the police went to ridiculous extremes, victims of the violence called for help across Turkey, and soon there were thousands of people joining this once minor demonstration.

Now, the protest has become a nation-wide youth movement. People are gathering in Istanbul by the thousands and already police have upped their presence and have started intimidating protesters again. Along with other issues the Turkish people have already been struggling with with their government, this once small protest may be in the beginning stages of a domestic uprising.

Why you should care:

Despite the ridiculous response to early protesting in Taksim Gezi Park, the Turkish government has not done much to resolve the situation. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan apologized for the unnecessary force used by the police, but that’s pretty much all that’s been done. Police still have a presence in the protest and the Prime Minister still plans to go through with the original plans for the park. Needless to say, people are maintaining their animosity and the movement has not been stifled in the slightest.

See that, kids? That’s a man who’s about to lose his political power. (www.atlasinfo.fr)

The question of “what happens next” is being answered in a variety of ways. Sources like Al-Jazeera continue to allude to a potential anti-government uprising to be born out of this protest. Inversely, The New York Times argues that this protest will not end in an attempt to oust the current Prime Minister or to overthrow the current government. Plenty of other places have given mixed reports and because the protest is in its early days, there are still multiple outcomes, ranging from minor results to extremely significant changes for the country.

So why should you care? Turkey could become the next country in the domino effect that is the Arab Spring (with a 99.8% Arab population, it very easily qualifies to be the next link in that chain). The United States has continued to ignore these hugely important uprisings in the Middle East and Africa, despite the fact that there has been at least one protest happening since the end of 2010. With increasingly severe situations continuing in these countries, like Syria and now Turkey, it’s going to be harder for the Obama administration to look away from these problems. You should care because if the situation in Turkey becomes an uprising, the US is going to have to deal with these movements that it’s been dreading to face.

Where you can read more:

Interactive Timeline of the Arab Spring (only goes to 2012, but still highly recommend): http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2011/mar/22/middle-east-protest-interactive-timeline

The Chain of Events Leading to the Protest at Present: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/06/20136513414495277.html

In Depth Information on the Protest Now: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/turkish-protest-leaders-meet-erdogan-deputy-as-turmoil-continues/2013/06/05/6f0e955a-ce21-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html

Escalation of the Protesters: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/06/world/europe/turkey-protests.html

Israeli Election January 2013

What is happening: 

For the past four years, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been the prime minister of Israel after over two decades of high ranking service in the Israeli government (Leader of the Opposition, Minister of Foreign Affairs, etc.). He’s an ex war hero, an ex ambassador to the United Nations, and actually served as Prime Minister in previous years (1996-1999). But despite being a major global political player, has gained fame through some not so glamorous ways. He’s created an immense amount of tension between his administration and the Obama administration (even though the US and Israel are considered close allies) and has an extreme stance on how to handle Palestine, even for Israel. He occasionally puts out an emotional tweet about the situation, similar to that of a thirteen year old girl fighting with her best friend. Plus, he comes out with the goofy diagram that makes it hard to take him seriously.

“The red line represents how close I am to destroying my credibility” (twicsy.com)

But even with these silly mis-haps, Netanyahu has maintained a decent strong-hold in the Israeli parliament. He has been intimidating to not only his own government, but to the entire world. That was, until last Tuesday.

Like the United States, Israel holds midterm elections for their parliament (the equivalent of Congress), and last week, Netanyahu’s party, the Likud Party, got hit really hard. The party that has held a vast majority of parliament for what seems like forever, only maintained the majority by the skin of their teeth. Which is a drastic change from previous elections where barely any other party could even voice an opinion. Now, with his party slimming down within the Israeli government, Netanyahu is seeing that his power is slipping away, and he may have to move to a more moderate position on pretty much everything Israel gets involved in. Again, a drastic change.

Why you should care: 

It’s no secret that the US and Israel have strong political ties and have been for years, but right now, that relationship is seriously on the rocks. Even though the US has always been a friend to Israel, they continue to promote peace between Israel and Palestine, holding meetings with global leaders and with Israel and Palestine individually, talking exclusively about the conflict. And ever since Obama has taken office, the American stance has become far more pro-Palestine, much to the dislike of one far-right, anti-Arab Netanyahu.

Frenemies (zionstrumpet.com)

The important thing to recognize is that there has been tense strain on the US-Israel relationship. And with this recent election, we could see that strain get a little more relaxed. Benjy will be forced to move further to the center on issues important to the US (read: all conflict with Palestine), favoring Obama’s platform on the issue and making strides towards peace in general. Despite this election, on its surface, seeming standard and not of particular importance, it will create a more moderate Israel and will make better, friendlier allies between the United States and one of it’s most important strong holds in the Middle East.

Where you can read more: 

Effect on Netanyahu: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israelis-vote-in-national-election-that-stirred-little-enthusiasm/2013/01/22/8507efb0-6494-11e2-b84d-21c7b65985ee_story.html

The Slim Win: http://www.economist.com/blogs/pomegranate/2013/01/israels-election-0

More On This New Political Player: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/new-israeli-political-star-champions-middle–class/2013/01/23/83b17ff0-6589-11e2-85f5-a8a9228e55e7_story.html

Algerian Hostage Crisis

What is happening:

Because this crisis is so recent, and the knowledge surrounding it is so foggy, what has happened is pretty simple.

On January 16th, a group of Islamic militants seized an internationally run natural gas field in Algeria, in response to French military intervention in Mali earlier this month. Sort of your typical, Middle Eastern terrorist group. “Death to the west” and all that jazz. During the attack, two people were killed and a large number were held hostage, and are still being held hostage. And since then, an unknown number of people have been killed, but those unknown numbers include at least one American. (Cue American media attention).

The attack was carried out at dawn on Wednesday by a group calling themselves the “Signed In Blood Battalion”, who were able to, very easily, throw off this highly secure, Westerner-run oil field. Despite having strong security and minds from all over the globe (Japan, France, United Kingdom, United States), the ambush was carried out with few issues and, even though many people got away, they still managed to hold a large group hostage. I’m not the only one who thinks this probably should have been prepared for, right?

Luckily on Friday, a portion of the hostages managed to escape. Upon their return, they recounted stories of attempting to go undetected, being forced to strap themselves with explosives, and seeing coworkers and fellow hostages shot on the spot. A load of fun, I’m sure. And they also explained how there are still several captives still being held hostage by the Islamic attackers at the field.

Conditions for the release of the remaining captives are being negotiated by the Algerian government, but with a unorganized military, little power, and no international help at present, it doesn’t seem like the conflict will come to a close any time soon. Which is great because, you know, the Middle East and Africa haven’t had enough conflicts to deal with lately.

Seriously, it’s like nothing. (helpfulfigures.com)

But that’s about all we know. The crisis is fresh and will probably continue through the weekend and onto next week. But, looking at the way a lot of these crises go, the larger conflict may just be getting started.

Why you should care:

As we mentioned before, American citizens are among the group of those being held hostage in the crisis and those who have been killed by these attackers. Which is a good enough reason to grab US attention. But this hostage crisis is also a slap from reality to the American public when it comes to paying attention to the conflicts (rapidly growing conflicts) in Northern Africa.

For example, the “recent” conflict in Mali, which caused this attack in Algeria, has been going on for months; it was even mentioned during the presidential debates (yeah, back in OCTOBER).

“Maybe if we just keep talking, everyone will forget we brought it up…” (quizlet.com)

On a much broader scale, Northern Africa has had major conflicts going on since mid-late 2010. Just do some minor research on conflicts like the ones in the Ivory Coast, Tunisia, Egypt, Senegal, Libya, etc. ALL of these places are in Northern Africa and ALL of these place have had conflicts during the past two and a half years. And how many of these conflicts has the US paid attention to or helped out in? Aside from a two day airstrike in Libya (during an almost year long uprising), try none.

Now, with this conflict escalating, this being the one of the largest hostage crises ever, and with Americans involved in the crisis, the US is finally forced to turn its attention to this region. Despite the current American strategy of abstaining from involvement in Northern Africa, this crisis is getting America front and center. And what’s really important is that it doesn’t just get them front  and center on the hostage crisis, but it puts them in Algeria, then Mali, then the rest of the area that is having any crisis, conflict or issue. This will be the first time the world will see an involved US in this part of the world since the endless string of uprisings began. And whether that goes according to plan for the Americans, or if more conflict will come from their involvement, the world will soon begin to see a very different Africa.

Where you can read more: 

Confusion Surrounding Crisis: http://www.economist.com/blogs/pomegranate/2013/01/algerias-hostage-crisis

Some Hostages Released: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/some-hostages-are-reported-killed-in-algerian-operation/2013/01/18/240fd97a-6151-11e2-b05a-605528f6b712_story.html

NPR Opinion On How To Handle Crisis: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/01/18/169732594/when-to-act-the-dilemma-in-every-hostage-crisis

Venezuela Without Hugo Chavez

What is happening:

Over a decade ago, Venezuela elected Hugo Chavez as its president in the midst of a national revolution. He was a military hero, spoke well and promised change, was loved by his nation, and meant the departure of a capitalistic government and the beginning of a socialist one (which was appealing to the Venezuelan people at the time). Passionate about decreasing income inequality and helping the poor, Chavez seemed like a stand up guy and perfect for Venezuela. And upon his election, it seemed like Venezuela had nowhere to go but up.

Unfortunately, things went south pretty quickly.

Even though Chavez was able to bring about the change for the poor that he promised and the change in income inequality for Venezuela, that came at a pretty hefty cost. The once level-headed, rational, beloved leader started to become more of a dictator than a president, and seemed to be losing his mind with all of the power. It’s almost certain, although not technically confirmed, that Chavez is involved with the huge drug war in Latin America, he pals around with other countries’ dictators, and even held a massive press conference two years ago discouraging the Venezuelan women from getting breast implants. Chavez was not leading quite like the people expected.

“How were we supposed to call this?!” – All of Venezuela (www.htsstlucia.org)

Along with his credibility, Chavez’s health started to decline. For almost two years, Chavez has been in and out of the hospital with cancer-related complications and his health is constantly a topic of conversation.

Bringing us to now. On New Years Eve 2012, Chavez was hospitalized with what seems to be the worst complication yet. The Vice President made a statement that he is in critical condition and his health is severely in jeopardy, which is easily the most serious statement regarding the President’s health to date. Because the grim tone of this statement and the reaction its gotten from the Venezuelan people, it seems like Chavez’s passing may be on the horizon. And even though the VP would come into power upon his death, the death of Hugo Chavez would completely change the political landscape of Latin America and could potentially change a great deal of the political landscape on a global scale.

Why the fuck you should care:

The easiest and most obvious reason is based around the economy. Despite being the fifth largest economy in Latin America, Venezuela has seen a steady decline in its economic growth and painful and swell in inflation over the past decade. And over the past few years while Venezuela’s economic strength diminished, Chavez did very little to effectively stop it from doing so. And he continues to do little. So, with a Chavez-less Venezuela, the door opens for a new political mind to step in and attempt to turn around the financial standing of the country. And when a country’s economy does better, its region’s economy does better, and when a region’s economy does better, the global economy does better. And the world today can use ANY, really, ANY economic bright spots. Basically, any decently sized economy doing better is good news for the United States.

But everything past that gets foggy. Even though they technically don’t have any obligation to do so, the US gets involved with a lot of countries that have harsh dictators, especially if they have connections to American enemies or if they have anything valuable (read: oil) to offer the US. So, naturally, the US has a relationship with Venezuela’s infamous leader; one who runs around with Vladmir Putin (Russia’s president, a big American “no no”) and one who holds the reigns of, essentially, a nation-sized bucket of oil.

BFFLs (www.timeturk.com)

So, obviously, you would think that a Chavez death would be good news for the US. They could help usher in a new, pro-American, pro-democracy leader and change the structure of Venezuela to suit the United States’ needs. Win-win for everyone. But the other side of it is a scary idea: with Chavez gone and a weak vice president in power, it opens up an opportunity for something that could be worse. Just looking at what’s happened in Libya and Egypt, where their “democratically elected” dictators were ousted and the new leaders in power aren’t doing anything to change their country for the better, it seems like some heavy foreshadowing of what a new leader in Venezuela could be.

If Chavez does pass away, the vacant spot left behind can either bring the United States a new ally or a similar, potentially greater, enemy. And with a tense political and economic climate, a friend is always helpful and an enemy could be detrimental.

Where you can read more: 

Chavez’s current health: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/venezuelan-vice-president-says-chavez-has-suffered-new-complications-in-delicate-condition/2012/12/31/a5e0cf52-53a7-11e2-89de-76c1c54b1418_story.html

Look back on a decade of Chavez: http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2009/02/chavez-casaszamora

Hugo Chavez: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Chávez

Eurozone Debt Crisis

What is happening:

The crisis with the Eurozone is not so hard to understand, but does require a bit of background:

Over a decade ago, 11 out of the 27 member states in the European Union decided to convert to a single, shared currency called the euro (€) with the hope of developing a stronger economy with a bigger, more competitive market. This created what is now called the eurozone, basically referring to those countries who use the euro as their currency. And from about 1999-2007,  everything the euro was supposed to be went according to plan. GDP was up pretty much everywhere, they faced a few issues with the switch, but all managed to do it, and the eurozone even gained more members (today, there are 17 total). I mean, why not just make one super economy by sharing monetary gains with each other?

Sharing money! All friends! Happy times! (www.brecorder.com)

But in late 2007, when the rest of the world was also economically collapsing, the entire European Union took a major hit. With the global economy absolutely tanking, every country started to see major financial losses and deficits that were not looking like they would be going away anytime soon. This is where things got messy. Because all of these eurozone countries were sharing the same currency, once one country’s debt started swelling and its economy began to crumble, so did every other eurozone country’s.  The common currency meant that, even though they got to share the economic growth of every country, they still felt the economic failings of every country too.

Essentially, the countries within the eurozone had so much debt accumulated, that they are now able to be dubbed “in crisis”.

Yeah… We probably should have seen this coming. (skalanews.com)

Which brings us to today. The debt of countries in the eurozone has gotten so bad that many countries are considering leaving the eurozone and the European Union. Now, upon first hearing this you would think, “Hey, good news. Kick out the countries with all the debt, and the euro is good to go again!” But this is not how the euro works. Instead of the departing countries hanging onto their own debt when dropping the euro and making new currencies, the EURO hangs onto the debt, and the country gets out scotch free. Plus, the euro gets further screwed because any revenue or profit they were getting from the country with debt, just goes away. So, when a country leaves the eurozone to make its own currency, the euro 1) has to keep all of that county’s debt and 2) doesn’t get to keep any sort of financial benefit that country was providing.

Fun stuff, right?

The dilemma today focuses on this issue. If choosing to save the euro, how to get it strong again and deal with the debt of all its members. But, if choosing to dissolve the euro, how the hell they’re going to have a clean exit without absolute financial catastrophe. They’ve tried the former for the past few years. Austerity measures, changes in leadership, etc. But now it seems like the latter is the best option. And how they’re going to manage that? I don’t think anyone has the faintest idea.

Why the fuck you should care:

This is a pretty simple and brief one. Even with my minimal (read: zero) formal education on economics, I can tell you that the world’s economies are intertwined and dependent upon each other. The euro is one of the world’s highest valued currencies, and the eurozone is one of the world’s largest economies. Currently, the euro is the equivalent of about $1.50, which makes it a stronger currency. Why you should care is because, even if the American economy gets better, the US needs the euro to get better too. Otherwise, the US economy, and more broadly, all of the world’s economies are going to almost exactly where they are now. The US economy can’t prosper without a financially healthy Europe.

Where you can read more:

Eurozone Debt Crisis Summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_sovereign-debt_crisis

Loan Demands: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/07/27/business/A-Euro-Zone-Divided.html

The Euro Moving Forward: http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2012/12/eu-summit-and-euro-crisis

The Conflict in Syria

What is happening:

So, for the past year and a half, Syria has been in an all out civil war between its government and its people. Yeah, a year and a half. Since the conflict officially began in March of 2011, Syrian rebels have been attacking (and been attacked by) the Syrian government in an attempt to overthrow the dictatorship held by Bashar al-Assad, one of the bloodiest, and probably the bat-shit craziest dictators the world has ever seen. As far as bloody goes, Assad has already seen to the death of over 8,000 fighters and 32,000 civilians. As far as insanity goes, he was quoted saying, “Only a crazy person would kill his own people.” Do we catch the irony here?

Ha ha! Bombs are fun! (www.lettera43.it)

The United Nations tried to send in “peacekeepers” who were essentially babysitters with no weapons, no power, and no ability to stop any sort of violence from happening. Time, energy, and money well spent, amirite? So, obviously, those did nothing. Several countries from around the world sent small batches of troops into the country to try to maintain peace, but again, they couldn’t do enough to make a difference. And, finally, very few diplomatic attempts were made to try to stop the violence from Assad, but, you guessed it, not enough to make any sort of real change to the situation! Which brings us to where we are today. Rebels are fighting the government (and losing, aside from a few successful attacks) and the government is continuing to bomb its people. Yay modern humanity.

Why the fuck you should care:

This one is tricky. Typically, you should care because of what America is doing about a world problem and the money being spent and the diplomacy and troops being used. But this time, you should care for a different reason. This time, you should care because of what little the U.S. is doing.

Take pretty much any (oil-filled) country in the Middle East or Africa that has had an uprising like this. Egypt, Libya, etc. The bloodshed wasn’t even a tenth as bad as in Syria and the conflict lasted less than half the time, and yet, the good ol’ US of A got itself involved. In Egypt, the U.S. sent weapons, in Libya, the U.S. had a goddam airstrike within the first few weeks. But now, with the death count passing 30,000 the U.S. has had absolutely no involvement with Syria. The United Nations has, frankly, done a half-assed job of trying to keep violence down, but the United States has continued to stay directly out of the entire conflict.

Nope, no thanks. (haber.gazetevatan.com)

Now, this is not an argument of whether or not the United States should intervene. Everyone is free to their own beliefs and opinions and there are definitely strong arguments for and against either side. But the point is that THIS SHOULD SEEM STRANGE. America gets involved in pretty much anything it can get its hands on, when there will at least be some mild benefit.

But, since Syria isn’t going to necessarily bring anything to the table as far as giving the US a hand at home (read: WEAPONS, MONEY, OIL), the US is abstaining from getting involved in the messy, seemingly unsolvable situation.

Essentially, you should care because this is one major global conflict that the United States is saying, “It’s cool; you guys got this,” to. And, even though they have their reasons (as self-interested as they are), it’s a bizarre thing to see.

Where you can read more:

Timeline of the Civil War: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Syrian_civil_war

Human Cost of the War: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/10/daily-chart-3

Economist Projections of What Will Happen Next: http://www.economist.com/news/21566341-it-will-be-worse-it-gets-better-syrias-agony