Should We Turn Our Backs on a Monster Because We Were Lied to by Another Monster?

FlipboardPinterestPrintReddit

Last updated on September 25th, 2023 at 01:37 pm

chemcial weapons

I was uncomfortably reminded of war-mongering during the House hearing, by both SOS John Kerry’s reference to Hitler (even if it was true, and when I realized that it could be, it shook me to the core because I, too, had deliberately dismissed mention of the slaughter as war-mongering) and many Republicans calling Obama weak for not declaring war.

Obama is being criticized for not focusing on the emotional argument for Syria, but he may view that as potentially too manipulative. He prefers to make his case, whatever the issue, intellectually. This character trait is one of his biggest downfalls politically, but something I appreciate post-heckofajobBrownie Bush. We may see a shift in his approach in his address to the nation.

To get more stories like this, subscribe to our newsletter The Daily.

War-mongering is done with aggressive surety that there is only one right way and you, the collective you, are too stupid to weigh in on it so get out of Big Daddy’s way. That is pretty much the opposite of what’s happening in this scenario. We are having a debate, as we should.

We don’t have access to the classified briefings and the UN was not allowed to finish its inspections in Syria because President Bashar al-Assad’s government won’t let them investigate in specific areas. Though I am usually the first to say let’s wait for the UN, Russia and China have blocked any meaningful Security Council resolution. Russia and China are among the 11 members of the G20 who have not backed an ICC referral, including the US. So this preferred route also seems unlikely.

But Human Rights Watch reports, “(T)he UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria has concluded that Syrian government forces are committing crimes against humanity through widespread and systematic attacks on civilians, a conclusion consistent with Human Rights Watch findings.”

What we have is increasing evidence of chemical weapons, quite possibly sarin gas according to tests of material and clothing at the site, killing between 502 and 1,400 people (estimates from various sources) in the August 21 attack. Russia and the Syrian regime claim it was the Syrian rebels, but if that’s true, why won’t the Syrian government let the UN inspect specific areas?

We have the knowledge that 5,000 Syrians are being killed a month. We have a choice about our reaction to it. We have already given $228 million to United Nations refugee agency, UNHCR, while Russia has only given $10 million and China $1 million.

The reasonable and anti-hawk duo of President Obama and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel (both of whom spoke out against the Iraq invasion and were among the few with the courage to do so at a time when it was considered political suicide) have presented Syria as something we must intervene on. When they say we must do this, it gives me pause, though I confess to wondering what national security issues this humanitarian argument might be covering.

When I hear this from a doctor in Syria, as told to the BBC’s Panorama crew, it gives me pause:

We feel like some sort of, not even a second-class citizen, like we just don’t matter. Like all of these children, and all of these people who are being killed and massacred, we don’t matter.
“The whole world has failed our nation and it is innocent civilians who are paying the price.”

The accompanying video should be mandatory viewing before weighing in with an opinion on Syria, but I warn you, it may make you physically ill.

Sometimes “peace” is complicated. Peace is not passive, peace is active. Peace is a process and a decision, we have to stand up for the principles of peace. Peace is not turning our eyes away from the child being beaten by her parents because confrontation would be ugly and costly for us. That’s not peace. That’s exhaustion, that’s trauma; it’s not peace.

“War” is not always just a “racket”. It was not a “racket” when we finally stood up in World War II. The trick is knowing the difference, because like anything else, there are always agendas. But one thing is clear: Obama’s agenda is not war for profit, as was the Bush Cheney administration’s. I already dissected Raytheon’s prices and to whom they and their PACs donate (Republicans over Democrats, Romney over Obama). Biden didn’t get a signing bonus from them when he took office, so no, this is not just like Bush and Iraq.

The ultimate goal in Syria would be to use limited strikes to create a peace negotiation with Assad in which he steps down, as in Bosnia. Not to force a regime change but to send the message that chemical weapons will not be tolerated by the international community. But a more reasonable goal would be to make it costly for the regime to continue chemical warfare. This would not be a “win” – it will never be a “win”, as Syria isn’t going to magically become stabilized no matter who is in charge. It is about upholding our principles of basic human rights.

We’ve tried all of the other avenues and Assad hasn’t stopped. Are we going to sit by and do nothing? Is that who we are now?

Good judgment means assessing each situation differently, not reacting to the past. The comparisons to Iraq are purely emotional, and ironically frequently made by people who supported Iraq in the beginning, but won’t admit that now. This is not Iraq. We are not being lied to about the evidence, no one is saying Syria is behind 9/11, and Joe Biden didn’t used to run Raytheon and doesn’t still have financial ties to Raytheon.

This is not the world I want, but it’s the world we have built. The bad news is that there is NO good choice here. There is an easy choice and a hard choice, but neither of them are “good”. There are also no guarantees, other than the fact that no matter what we do or don’t do, people will die as a result. There are great risks to getting involved.

If Congress doesn’t give Obama the authorization because the people didn’t want it, by that logic, Obama could then press Congress to actually do the people’s work – jobs and the economy. But we all know that this Congress doesn’t really care about the people, so I find this dodge of responsibility suspicious.

I am suspicious of Republicans (and Democrats) who are pretending to be populists when behind right wing, elitist, authoritarian ideology is the notion that the “rubes” must be led, that democracy is dangerous and bad. So no, I don’t believe that these lawmakers suddenly care about what the people want. I believe they are hiding behind the people’s skirt, afraid to be on record making a hard decision.

I do believe those with a history of responding to their constituents, like Senator Bernie Sanders and Senator Barbara Boxer. Sanders made a compelling argument against the strikes, but it is an argument based on the principles of taking care of ourselves first because our resources are limited. Yes, we should do that, but the only reason we are faced with such a retraction from actual liberal principles of standing up against injustice is because Republicans refuse to govern in Congress.

I don’t like being pushed into a position because certain people aren’t doing their job, and I don’t think it makes good sense to base an important decision on the crappy options left open to us by a Mad Hatter House of Representatives. In fact, I can’t say I’ve been as resentful of the Republicans in the House as I am right now. If they turn us into them, into people who place our own interests first with a greedy me first attitude, we have already lost our way.

Morally, I find this argument of self interest both righteous and yet repugnant.

It’s as if we now believe we have to choose between getting help here and helping others. Great framing the Republicans have managed for a party out of power. In truth, were the Republicans to do their job, we could do both. If Republicans were to stop deliberately obstructing economic health, we could do both.

And who is to say that even if we do nothing on Syria, Republicans will “let us” help the people here. Are they going to pass a jobs bill? Refund Head Start? Have they given any indication that those things are likely? No, they have not. Quite to the contrary, they have suggested that they are still considering using the debt ceiling as economic terrorism.

See, to buy fully into Senator Sander’s argument, you have to buy into the frame that the reason we aren’t helping our own people is that we don’t have the money. But that is not true. The reason we are not helping our own people is because the Republicans in the House of Representatives fought hard for the sequester and used it as a weapon of mass destruction to defund programs they don’t agree with.

I know this line of thinking is exceptionally unpopular and I will be called a war-monger, just as I was called unpatriotic by hardcore liberals and Democrats when I refused to jump on board the Iraq invasion. Yes, I know everyone likes to pretend they were on the right side back then, but few were. Such is the pressure of cultural popularity. However, it would be dangerous to only make popular decisions.

I have no explanation for Obama and Hagel’s stance other than the most troubling one, and that is that they have come to the very tough conclusion that the violations of human rights are so extreme and so dangerous that we need to intervene. What if we, in reaction to Iraq and in hopes of finally getting ours after years of being ignored, turn into the coldhearted, survival of the fittest machines we allege to find repugnant.

What if we turn our backs on a monster because we were lied to by another monster. How will we live with that?

If I were in Congress, I would want to wait to vote for the lab tests to come back from the materials the UN was able to gather to be tested for sarin gas, which other tests already suggest was used against the people. If the tests of the UN’s materials are positive, we have a duty to act. If the UN can’t get on board because of Russia and China even after their own tests show that international laws are being violated, we will face tough moral and legal decisions. If we turn our backs and do nothing in the face of sarin gas being used on Assad’s own people, we are giving a green light to Iran and North Korea to do the same.

I’ll be grateful and relieved if we do not strike Syria, and glad to be wrong if Assad suddenly stops using chemical weapons against his own people or it was all a big ruse that even Iran started buying into for some inexplicable reason, just as I hoped so deeply that I was wrong about George W Bush and Iraq.

Image from the BBC video.

You may also like...

Copyright PoliticusUSA LLC 2008-2023