Comments

1
I don't really think anyone, including the President, believes that bombs are going to make anything better. The point of the bombing seems to simply be punishment of the Al-Assad regime for allegedly using banned chemical weapons. That is all. What to do to actually make the situation in Syria better for the people continues to be a complete mystery, at least according to everything I've read on the subject.
3
Paul writes - "I think targeted air strikes are not nearly as neat and clean as the military—and televised media—would like you to believe."

That's the pleasure I get from reading analysis from Paul. Such innovative thought. Ideas that never would have occurred to me. Paul is way ahead of his time.
4
We really need to fix that bully metaphor. "Isn't the whole point of civilization to protect the weak and the innocent from bullies? "

Yes, except that America is the bully. Or, at least, the worst of the bullies.

There are so many bullies it can be hard to judge, true. But the country whose leadership has BY FAR the most blood on its hands in the middle east is America. We support dictatorships, no matter what they do, as long as it furthers American hegemony in the region (Saddam's chemical weapons against Iran, for example, Iran itself, for another example, and countless examples in central America). We really don't have the moral authority to go in as a force of moral order.

That leads to the question: "Can't we help even if we don't have moral authority/legitimacy/a shred of credibility? If we are the bad guys, can't we be the good guys here?"

Yes, we could. Diplomacy, sending help for the refugees, removing our support for other bad guys, there are lots of things we could do. In fact, we could have been doing those for the last two years but we haven't because our foreign policy is not guided by humanitarian concerns.

Much of the turmoil in the middle east (unstable governments, extremist groups, etc.) is rooted in the history of western imperialism, of which we are now the largest force. By suppressing the very reasonable demands for self-determination of more moderate groups in the middle east, we increased the the power and influence of desperate extremists and inflamed divisions in the region. We have taken out constitutional governments and replaced them with dictators.

Any response to this situation needs to look at the whole history of western intervention in the middle east, at least this past century's worth. Most Americans aren't aware of this. Thank god there is majority opposition to a military intervention in Syria, even if it's for the wrong reasons (isolationism) rather than the right reasons (see above).

Paul, even if you don't know what you think we should do yet (I sure don't) can you and the Stranger at least please come out forcefully, publicly, against the bombing Syria idea? Like, focus your coverage on that for a couple of weeks?

How is this issue not on the cover of The Stranger this week? I don't understand.

5
Ah the joys of "pop-history" as one of my prof's in college used to call books like those you just read. Not very thought provocative and published less about the period they are about and more about the current zeitgeist. And by that I mean our current political climate over the past several years, not just Syria.

But as Mark Twain said "History doesn't repeat itself but it does seem to rhyme". I think those are some words for Paul to heed before he digs himself further into the hole he's currently in.
6
"...In retrospect, our involvement in World War II seems so unavoidable..."

In retrospect, much of what happened seems inevitable. What makes history a gripping subject is finding out all the big things we've heard about - Rome, the American Revolution, Civil War, industrialism, the Holocaust, just to name a very select few things, and with a distinct Western cultural bias - were anything but inevitable.

The notion that We Should Do Something About It is a very, very new concept in this world. It was borne mostly out of the horrors of WW2, especially the Holocaust, although obviously the idea that international relations should be governed by a league of the world's nations ties into that, and goes back to WW1. Before then? Well, conquest, subjugation and slaughter were the norm, for "civilized" Western nations as well as the rest of the world.

It really is a good idea to debate the idea that we should do this. I think that trying to prevent nations from slaughtering its own citizens is, in general, the right thing for the UN to do. But each situation is unique. For example, in Syria, you have a minority group ruling a majority, which makes the dynamic of slaughter somewhat different - the government won't be able to kill all the Sunnis, which makes it different from, say, the Serbs trying to kill all the Bosnians.

But there's also a distinctly different thing going on here - Assad is using chemical weapons, and their use has implications that go well beyond Syria's borders, which is why it's of greater interest than the bombing of Sunni neighborhoods and villages to the international community. They are highly effective for the purpose of state terrorism against its citizens (don't let anyone bring up tired WW1 stories about their effectiveness - this isn't trench warfare, or the moving of divisions to capture locations). Ignoring their use could potentially let all the other dictators know that the world have given them the green flag to do the same.

In short, to strike or not to strike Syria isn't about saving lives. It's about stopping the use of chemical weapons only.

Now, it's possible, likely even, that there's more to this than meets the eye - that it isn't simply about the chemical weapons. Especially since Russia has been doing its level best to reignite the Cold War and see if they can win this time. The American government knows that getting the public behind their military adventures involves selling them that it isn't just war for base geopolitical aims - we're fighting for Freedom! Against Terrorism! For A Better World! And that government isn't above lying to us, or creating opportunities out of minor incidents like the Gulf of Tonkin or Saddam's refusal to cooperate with weapons inspections, in order to get American support for actions with much baser motivations. So when they come around telling us some feel-good story about why we need to intervene, I'm going to be highly skeptical.

In the case of Syria, a nation whose relations with Israel are at best a state of truce, we're interested that whoever comes out on top won't decide to try to start a shooting war again. I don't think they have much oil or mineral wealth, unlike Iraq. But the Israel angle is enough to not just buy what they're selling - yet.
7
The differences between left and right on war in the middle east have become paper thin. The neocons wanted to restructure all of the Arab world so they would behave the way we want them to.

Now, many on the left want bullshit "surgical strikes" (don't like drones? Just wait until the Tomahawk barrage) on an Arab power because, you guessed it, they aren't behaving the way we want them to.

Stay the fuck out of it. This is a sectarian war of survival, to make a real difference will require much, much more than our high-tech, laser guided ordnance. It's going to take thousands and thousands of young men and women, many of whom are based just down the Interstate at JBLM. Why do you so easily write them off Paul?
8
Paul, I appreciate your thoughtful post on this topic (the book looks interesting, too!). You echo a lot of my thoughts about Syria as well when you say you don't know what to do, but you know what you don't want to happen. How can any civilized society stand by and watch while children die by the thousands at the hands of their own government?

I think the main issue, though, is how they were killed, ie chemical weapons. As has been pointed out in many places, including Slog, there have been many times in recent history when a rogue government slaughtered its own people, or a nation was torn apart by tribal warfare or even attempted genocide, and America did nothing. I think it's the fact that sarin gas was used that distinguishes this latest bloodbath and made it imperative (to some) that America and other nations take action - in order to make the point to Assad and other assholes that may be watching (Kim Jong Un, for instance) that such actions will never be tolerated by the greater community of the world. Violation of Geneva conventions, general assholery, and all that.

In that context, I do support Obama and Kerry and the efforts of other diplomats and nations to take some kind of action against the Syrian regime. (A separate issue is the fact that Syria expects us to do something, and was nearly caterwauling with glee that no strike occurred last weekend.) I don't believe a limited drone strike would solve the problem, but I also don't believe that that would be its purpose. I believe that the purpose of such a strike be to send as clear a message as possible: "Yes, we ARE watching, and no we will NOT tolerate the use of chemical weapons - not here, not now, not anywhere."

As much as it's nauseating me to agree with Chuck Hagel et al, I do believe it's important that that message gets sent, and sooner rather than later.
9
@7 -
"This is a sectarian war of survival"

Exactly. This is so much more complicated than a downtrodden people rising up against a mean old dictator. The Assad regime is brutal, but if you aid in toppling them you will be party to the outright massacre of Alawites and their allies that follows. Both sides are fighting to rid Syria of the other side. There are solutions available to powerful countries like the US, but there is no way we would ever muster the will and resources to implement them. We haven't in Sudan, we haven't in the Congo, and so on. When we do muster something resembling a fraction of the real effort it would take to bring peace to a sectarian war torn country, we always end up ramping up the violence to previously unimaginable levels (Afganistan, Pakistan). We should pour all the humanitarian need we can into Syria and the surrounding countries where refugees are going. We should also work tirelessly to bring warring sides together to negotiate an end to the fighting. Intervening militarily is almost the very last thing we should do.
10
Washington Post has some ideas about what the US can do, non-militarily, to help the people of Syria:

http://socialreader.com/me/content/EQ9l0…
11
WWII was preceded by civil war in Spain and the Italians in Ethiopia. Smaller conflicts that led up to the main event. Conflicts that no one intervened in.

Also, we are still dealing with the effects of decolonization and the sometimes arbitrary nation boundaries that resulted.

I agree with the author here that this is messy. And, I'm glad that people are trying to take a nuanced look at this situation by looking back as well.
12
This debate might be helped along by going back even further in history and searching for books & literature on the post-World War 1 era, when the international response to the use of chemical weapons initally became a top tier diplomatic issue. It's my sense (absent any hard research) that contemporary conventional wisdom on chemical weapons was formed at that time -- in the immediate aftermath of the use of such weapons by a European power in an erstwhile conventional war.

Wouldn't it help us to recall what that was like, and why it was such a big deal? Wasn't the clarion call at the time to ensure that such madness never happeneed again? Surely there is a book similar to the Roosevelt-Lindberg analysis involving Woodrow Wilson and the other League of Nations protagonists..?
13
I think we need to take out the Syrian military from the air. Or as much as we can, anyway. We need to degrade their ability to war on their own people. There's just no other way.
14
1. no one said surgical, it's just that cruise missles aren't boots on the ground.
2. no one promises it will do good. we might miss.
3. it might knock out the chemical weapons facility.
4. the norm against chem weapons deserves to be enforced this way; they're not the same and doing nothing means it's more likely north korea or many others will use chem weapons.
5. the oppo groups include thugs, murderers and al Qaeda. yes, Exactly. That's why it's very important we just destroy the chem weapons so they don't fall into those hands either.
6. we've commited crimes in the past, true, but in fact America on the whole is a force for good. declaration independence, fighting british empire off, ending slavery, fighting ww1 and ww2 when maybe we could have stayed out, we often have done the right thing and relatively that is compared to rome Egypt Persian empires china soviet union china today we are FAR MORE moral and right than most huge powers and if we don't do anything no one will and then if chem weapons become normalized we and all folks supporting no action are at fault being the people who COULD HAVE TAKEN ACTION BUT DIDN'T EVEN TRY and yes it deserves yelling. in general human rights democracy and humanitarian norms have grown and strengthened and they do that through punishing violators. it should be international, true, maybe it will IF WE ACT. we can do something that may help, that's enough justificiation, and those civilians who will be killed. not might be, will be killed through more chemical attacks DESERVE OUR HELP and if we don't then what are we, people who say "never again" after Rwanda but then say "okay again, because we're weary"?

what a convenient self centered excuse. Syria has no oil. it's not that. we don't want to occupy. so what bad motive of ours could possibly be at play? the bad motive is if we don't help because they're moslem. if they were in Europe fuck man we'd have bombed already.
15
Thought for the day, based on this book: the core political structure of all major powers in the 1930's was somewhere on the fascist spectrum. Strong, wise leaders must skillfully impose their morality on subjects, and unite them around the moral greatness of their respective nation-state. This morality should be enforced domestically and abroad through violence, which is the only justified violence in the world. There's a reason that Goebbels learned most of his tricks from the American advertising industry, which was spawned from the American Creole Commission in WW1: they perform the exact same societal function of instilling this morality across a broad population using the predominant one-way communication media of the day (film, radio).

I feel like we're still living in the shadow of this truth, unable to even verbalize it because of the fact that the only meaning of "the Nazis" in current usage is the side that lost WW2. Which brings us right back to the present. I'm actually an optimist that we're in the opening stages of a class conflict (with the Mannings and Snowdens as a vanguard) of a technological class raised on the completely different distributed social paradigm of the internet. My hope is this spells the end of fascism that can't be spoken, and leads to something truly democratic. I'm an optimist like that.
16
Obama (and the rest of those who are in favor of the strikes) wants to preserve America's "credibility." That's the only reason I've heard, either from him or anyone else. But we have long since lost any credibility we ever had, and this will not bring it back.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.