What’s Wrong Today:
The Very Serious People (VSP) say that that US credibility is on the
line in Syria. Now the question is, to bomb or not to bomb. The VSP also say that
the credibility issue is caused by Mr. Obama’s vacillation over what to do about Syria.
Two years ago, he said that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must go.
Last year, he drew the now-infamous “red line” on chemical weapons use.
Then, after chemical weapons were used on civilians, most likely by the
Assad regime, Obama called for military action. Then he punted the decision to
the Congress, which the VSP say, hurt Mr. Obama’s credibility.
Merriam-Webster defines credibility as “the quality or power of
inspiring belief.” Applied here, it means that when you draw a line in the
sand, you have to be willing to fight when that line is crossed.
Perhaps we
should take a broader view.
It is clear that our
credibility has been in free fall since George W. Bush was president. We, along
with the rest of the world will be paying for his willfully destructive
behavior for generations. Our credibility is not necessarily going to improve
regardless of the decision in this instance; the world thinks that we simply
aren’t trustworthy anymore, given past and expected future body counts. It won’t change,
regardless of whatever the obvious, or not-so-obvious facts are in the case of
CW use in Syria.
So the questions are:
1. What
are the likely consequences of going it alone?
2. What
are the likely consequences of working with the UN?
At the heart of
the current debate in DC is whether a limited missile strike would make any
difference. No one is arguing that we should work within the framework of the
UN. The near-unanimous opinion is America needs to intervene. Yet, from the
porches of America’s heartland to the marbled floors of the Capitol, the
consensus is that a limited missile strike is more likely to aggravate matters rather
than solve anything.
How
will going into Syria alone improve our credibility? We have yet to see a coherent answer that looks better for our
credibility than a coherent answer to #2.
One way we could
improve our global credibility is by leaving
this decision to the UN. Let them build the evidence, make the case, condemn
the current regime, and along the way, embarrass the Russians and Chinese who support Assad. Even
if the UN fails to build the case, if the evidence isn’t there, the ideal outcome is that an
international norm is upheld. And
you keep your leverage with the global community and against North Korea and
Iran on the subject of WMD.
Either way, let the
war run its course. Work to get a Sunni from within the regime or the military
to replace Assad explicitly because he killed his own people. This would remove much of the rationale
for many opposition groups to keep fighting and it might permanently tilt the
conflict to the one political entity that can maintain control over the CW
stockpiles.
If we go it alone,
the worst outcome is that the Syrian regime loses control of some of their CW stockpiles.
They might then get distributed around the Middle East by trans-national
anti-American (maybe anti-everyone) entities, precipitating a race between
Russia, Iranian proxies and the West to control the CW stockpiles on the ground.
Along the way, there could be gassing of both civilians and military personnel in
Syria and/or abroad and possibly, a direct conflict between the nuclear states.
Secretary Kerry says,
blowing up some of Assad’s toys will certainly make him very sorry (kind of like giving your kid a time-out) and give
others pause while at the same time holding us above the civil war. But it’s still unclear how a strike that
doesn’t alter the dynamic of the war (or give aid to people we really don’t
like) is somehow better than a strongly worded letter or a UN resolution when
it comes to sending the world a message about using chemical weapons.
Despite
the thinking of the VSP’s, seeking Congressional approval for a limited act of
war (which is what lobbing missiles into another country is called) is laudable,
and may actually boost our global credibility.
It is
useful to remember that there was a vigorous debate, in both Congress and the
public, during the buildup to Operation Desert Shield and the Gulf
War in 1991. Despite widespread opposition, both operations went ahead. Eleven
years later there was a vigorous debate both in Congress and in public, during
the buildup to the invasion of Iraq. A month before the invasion, Feb. 15, 2003, was the largest single day
of peace protests in the history of both the US and of the planet.
Despite that widespread opposition, the operation went ahead.
Now, once again, 11
years after the 2002 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), there
is vigorous debate, in both Congress and in the public and there is widespread opposition.
There were all the
“little” wars such as Kosovo, Afghanistan, Grenada, and Panama where
the debate was skipped and war also came.
None of
these events, whether debated or not, did anything for our “credibility”.
As responsible
citizens, we learned the difference between Sunni and Shia Islam, we then
learned about Wahabism and Salafism and about Copts and Kurds while the “deciders”
learned more about how to line up with this year’s “friends” and
“foes.” Oh, and how to play
video poker on the iPhone during hearings.
And all of us who
made an effort to become as informed as possible and who engaged in those
debates in opposition to the mad rush to war were chumps.
Chumps in denial
about what keeps the US economy running.
We have not left the
hubris of being “the world’s sole superpower” behind, even though W. ended
our ability to be that country.
We were the people
with no credibility: Chumps.
Chumps who, at a tender age listened to Gandhi and MLK,
Jr. Two people walked their talk.
People with real credibility.
