I have been watching with great interest for the past two weeks the developments in Syria. I have also been watching with great interest the response by President Obama to those developments. To say that he has been banging the war drums would be an understatement.
The premise is based on the following: Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is alleged to have launched a chemical weapons strike on his own people on August 21. This was the latest action by Assad's regime against his people as part of the Syrian civil war that has been going on since 2011. The civil war broke out as a part of the Arab Spring, which began back in 2010. The Syrian people want political reforms, reinstatement of civil rights, and greater freedom. Assad and his representatives have been repeatedly stating publicly that the fighting between government forces and rebel forces is due to outside involvement.
After the August 21 attack, President Obama began to call for military action against Syria. Not all U.S. politicians were convinced. Not all world leaders were convinced, either. In the ensuing two weeks since the attack, the rhetoric has been ratcheted up by President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, directed to U.S. politicians and world leaders. President Obama drew a proverbial "red line" that Assad has crossed, only to later roll back that comment by saying, "The world set a red line."
President Obama's argument is partly on moral grounds. (More on that later.) He has stated that several nations agreed to find the use of chemical weapons as unacceptable under international agreement. The result of the Chemical Weapons Convention was an arms control agreement, first drafted in September of 1992, signed into ratification in January of 1993, and took effect in April of 1997. The agreement, in effect, outlawed the use of chemical weapons, as well as their production and stockpiling, in addition to regular monitoring and inspection of chemical plants and military bases. To date, all but seven U.N. member states have signed the agreement. Syria is one of the seven, along with Angola, Egypt, Israel, Myanmar, North Korea, and South Sudan.
The rhetoric being used sounds very similar to that was used in the lead up to the Iraq War. We are certain ... We have proof ... We are convinced . . . Britain just released a report that said clothing and soil samples taken from a patient treated for apparent chemical weapons exposure last month near Damascus showed the presence of sarin gas. Interesting about Britain, though, was a vote in British Parliament on August 29 that was against the use of military force in Syria.
It seemed to many observers, as well as current Prime Minister James Cameron, that it was a foregone conclusion that Britain would stand side-by-side with the U.S. on this matter -- considering former Prime Minister Tony Blair's walking in lockstep with former President George W. Bush regarding Iraq -- but they did not. (At least for now.) France seems to be the closest ally to the U.S. on this matter. (Considering the past historical relationship between France and the U.S. on matters of military engagement, this is quite the historical development, in and of itself.)
The talk of coalitions has resurfaced. It has been mentioned by President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry that all of those who signed the Chemical Weapons Agreement are in opposition to Assad's actions in Syria. Thus, they are part of a coalition. If so many other countries and nation-states are against what's been happening in Syria, then why aren't any of them stepping out to the forefront on this matter? It has been suggested that the U.S., being the superpower that it is, should take the lead. Okay, fine. The U.S. has taken the lead on this and, so far, no one is else, save for France, is jumping on the bandwagon. So, where is the coalition? If President is at the G-20 Summit in Russia attempting to drum up international support, then where is the coalition? The pushback and lack of gung ho attitude in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives shows that Iraq is still fresh in peoples' minds.
Let me return to the idea mentioned earlier of attacking Syria as the morally correct thing to do. That is a tricky argument, at best. Yes, the use of chemical weapons is immoral. No, it should not be treated with impunity. Yes, the use of chemical weapons is an act of aggression, but so is the use of any weapons. I do not find merit in the use of missiles fired by U.S. warships as a deterrent to the use of chemical weapons fired within Syria, since both are weapons of mass destruction. Or do the American people think (or do our politicians want us to think) that only countries that are not our allies possess "weapons of mass destruction"? Not to mention the civil war going on, and how likely we are to get embroiled in that, as well as the likelihood of Iran jumping into the fray.
I do not believe our military involvement is warranted here. Something needs to be done, but not militarily. To that end, let me posit the following scenario: (You can use 9/11 or the attack on Pearl Harbor for an example, if you wish, but I mean this in the broadest possible sense.) We are attacked by another country's missiles. Wouldn't a likely response be retribution? Wouldn't we see that as an act of war against us? Of course we would.
If our government used chemical weapons against us and another country was thinking about bombing our country, albeit military and chemical locations, would we, the masses, see that as an act of war? Some would; some would not. (Depends on where the bombs and collateral damage end up.) Would our government see it that way? Of course it would.
The point is not that President Obama is using chemical weapons against U.S. citizens, just as Syrian President Assad is doing against his people. The point is that any government, attacking its citizens or not, is going to see this as an act of war. Yes, they are 100% in the wrong and on the side of immorality in the Syrian government, but their government will still see it that way, just as our government would. (In both cases of 9/11 and the attack on Pearl Harbor, the actions of Al-Qaeda and the Japanese were seen as acts of war.)
I am not siding with Assad. The reality is that those doing such immoral atrocities don't want to be found out and attacked themselves, and those not doing such immoral atrocities have no reason to be attacked.
I have learned how our government got us into the Vietnam War, to my chagrin. I saw how our country was viciously attacked on 9/11, to my chagrin. I saw how our country destroyed the goodwill shown to it in the shadow of 9/11 by engaging in an ongoing "war" against an ideology, including the use of preemptive strikes, to my chagrin.
If Syria has not attacked us and has not said (or it hasn't been discovered) that these attacks are a precursor to attacks on the U.S., then where is the imminent threat to the U.S. that could lead to a military response? In short, a bombing campaign that sounds as though it might rival "shock and awe", even if intended for military and chemical locations, will have collateral damage. There is no such thing as a "surgical strike"! I am unconvinced to the merit of President Obama's argument, except to the military industrial complex. (And even if Congress votes against action, the President is likely to proceed, anyway.) Sadly, very sadly, Eisenhower remains 100% correct.
My plea is for restraint in the midst of this crisis. We are becoming what we stood against for generations. In addition to being seen as such, our military action will be an act of war.
Terry
No comments:
Post a Comment