On Syria

[drwex]

I have a lot of thoughts, but they're politics and personal and probably going to piss people off. Also, this got long.

It may surprise people to learn that I am not a pacifist.

I believe very strongly in trying every other alternative to violence. I have tried never to use violence in my life and my relationships with others, particularly my children. I respect and admire pacifists. I believe that people who call pacifists "weak" or "cowards" have no idea what they're talking about. My first marriage was under a Quaker license and I read some Quaker philosophy, including their opposition to war and military service. I read some of the writings of two of the best-known pacifists of the 20th century (Gandi and King). When I chose a martial art I studied Aikido, known for being one of the least violent approaches to self-defense.

I find myself drawn to the Passover story and its ending, often overlooked. After the Red Sea has closed upon the Egyptian armies and the Hebrews are assured of their escape they start to celebrate. G-d stops them, saying "How can you dance when My children are dying?" This confused me a lot as a youngster, particularly one brought up in American-ism. We cheer our winners. Our stories are full of good guys beating bad guys and when we win we celebrate, with an end-zone boogie or something. It still confuses me as an adult, but here's what I've come to think:

I think that war (violence) is never just. It's never right. But sometimes it is necessary. A pacifist excludes the violent option because it is never just nor right, and I respect that. But I also respect necessity.

What, then, to make of Syria?

I think the US is and has been doing the wrong things. For example, it's shameful that we've stood by while Syria's neighbors have shouldered an estimated $2 billion cost for caring for the war's refugees. That's a drop in the bucket for us.

We've also been pussyfooting around the diplomatic front. We're scared to go to the UN General Assembly for a resolution, which would let us get around Russian/Chinese obstructionism because we're afraid of what the G.A. would say. We'd get a lot of flak there, but I'm pretty sure we could muster the 50% or 2/3 needed to get a full resolution. At a minimum we could put all the Arab states on the spot by forcing an up/down vote on a resolution. Right now they get to hide behind Russia's obstructionist cover. Speaking of Russia, we should be building them an exit strategy, including guarantees they can evacuate anything they want to take out of Syria. Negotiate a treaty of passage for their vessels, whatever it takes. Their base isn't the only reason they back Assad but it's a big one. We need to be helping them extricate themselves.

We should be willing to make a case to the ICC for Assad's war crimes except we're scared to get near the ICC too because we're not signatories because we're afraid OUR guys would get hauled up there.

Our decades-long practice of going it alone and being the world's policeman since the USSR collapsed are now coming back to bite us, really hard. But US embarrassment pales next to the growing body count, and we ought to put on our adult clothes and do the right thing.

All that said, I believe that the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons changes things. It's a qualitative shift. I know that some commentators have said "dead is dead, so what's the big deal" but that misses several points.

Chemical weapons are weapons of terror more than they are weapons of war. That's why there has been a widespread convention against them for almost a century (though Syria is not a signatory). I've been reading material from MSF/Doctors Without Borders that documents the injuries to medical personnel who are trying to treat the victims of chemical attacks. Chemical weapons leave contamination that can persist for unknown time and pose invisible hazards to vulnerable populations such as pregnant women. No one wants to see more dead children, but I think it's disingenuous to say that chemical weapons are not qualitatively different.

Furthermore, there have been considerable efforts to limit or ban other weapons that have disproportionate effects on non-combatants - landmines, cluster bombs, and depleted uranium ammunition all come to mind. I believe it is important that there be a meaningful response to the use of chemical weapons that is different from the meaningful response to the war in general.

I believe Obama must go to Congress for authorization, and I'm glad he did. The language I've seen so far has been scarily broad, but I understand they can't telegraph their intentions too directly. A balance needs to be struck that allows a clear military action without embroiling us in another quagmire that is tragic but not our business nor within our power to solve. We need to deter the use of chemical weapons - that is the necessary action.

What would I do? I'm no military expert, but I can speculate with the best of them. I think we can do two things: degrade the regime's military effectiveness, and scare the bejeezus out of them.

In the first case, it's clear we can't actually stop him launching more weapons. Most military assets are not targetable - they're mobile, and most of them are too close to civilians. However, things like repair facilities and runways are hard to move and often away from non-combatants. Taking out fixed assets won't stop the fighting, but it will make the regime less able to deploy and maintain the heavy weaponry that has done the most harm to civilians. Adding arms, or trainers, or military personnel escalates the situation. Taking out military hardware can help de-escalate.

As for scaring Assad, I have fantasies. I imagine that the US could take control of Syrian airspace for a limited period of time and just keep aircraft visible over Assad's palace or the royal guard HQ. Not a single bomb has to be dropped to make it clear that we could, if we chose, land any ordinance we desired at any moment. It's pretty damned terrifying to have constant helicopter surveillance going on when I'm just a civilian and I know it's not aimed at me. If all I could see were enemy fighter jets and attack copters they would not have to fire a shot to get the message across. If I was feeling particularly un-subtle I would drop an effigy with a sign in Arabic that said "Osama bin Laden thought he was safe, too."

I'm sure our psy-ops guys can come up with other brilliant ideas that would convey the message that the regime's leadership is going to be held directly accountable for the use of chemical weapons, without raining down cruise missiles. Would that deter the regime? I don't know. I do know that doing nothing is certain not to deter, and may even encourage.

We've put ourselves in a stupid position, with no right course of action. Therefore, we must do what is necessary, and do better. A component of the Aikido I studied was the notion that if you got into a fight you had already lost because you failed to see it coming and take steps to avoid it. Here we are, in a fight we should have avoided. The best thing I think we can do is take steps to deter Assad right now from using more chemical weapons in the future, without incurring more loss of life in the process.

Comments

[c1.livejournal.com]

I respectfully disagree.

Forget that it's hypocritical for the US to get angry about chemical weapons use in the Middle East. That not sending in the Tomahawk missiles will mean American adversaries will feel free to make more weapons of mass destruction. I'm convinced that Iran and North Korea are taking careful notes in those odd moments of downtime while they feverishly work on their own nuclear bombs.
Let's focus on what will happen in reality.

Obama will be launching cruise missiles in a few days. That's pretty much a given. They'll hit something, but there is a good chance that at this point, no-one in Washington has a clue as to what. "The bombs are coming!" has been broadcast for far too many days now, and Assad has surely moved a few things around. Note that the US has no reliable intelligence on Syria to speak of.

So we're going to see a smoking crater. There will be bodies. They will likely be those of women and children, alongside a hastily erected sign that might read "Baby Food Factory" or something like that. Maybe we can get Peter Arnett to do a live feed.

But for a moment, let's presume that the strikes hit something meaningful, and Assad is forced out. What then? A power vacuum? A descent into chaos and anarchy, soon to be quelled by the Taliban, like what happened in Afghanistan when the Soviets left? Isn't that just a first class return trip ticket that will be redeemed by the US in about 5-10 years?

I think your best idea was to do something about the refugees. On that, yes, the West can make a big difference. But making smoking craters with bits of Syrian military hardware at the bottom is the textbook definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over again in the hopes that the outcome will be different.

[drwex]

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I think you're confusing doing "something" or a general AUMF, with a specific goal of deterring one person/regime from using one particular class of weapons. I am, in some part, reacting to what I see as a warmongering faction (led at the moment by Sen McCain) who have refused to vote for any AUMF if it has limited scope. My argument is that this is precisely wrong and that a specific response is needed. Perhaps I should work on better phrasing.

[c1.livejournal.com]

The problem is that there is no clear goal. At best, the goal is to "do something", but Obama has articulated about as clearly as anyone that there will be no US boots on the ground in Syria, so that severely blunts any possible message. (I actually think this is a good thing: the US needs to quit fighting a war that hasn't ended since WWII.) Everyone seems to be thinking that by sending in the missiles, Syria will be convinced that it needs to go about killing people humanely; but without the commitment of troops, the only message being sent will be "Stop, or I'll say 'stop' again". Certainly no-one could possibly imagine that everyone will be stunned into suddenly setting aside animosities that have simmered for ages, hold hands, and spontaneously start singing Kumbaya, right?

The best thing that could happen at this point is the US sends humanitarian aid, and contents itself with that. Unfortunately, the lesson that seems to have been completely lost, at least since the Shah of Iran was toppled, is that memories are at least as long as the desert is hot.

[rednikki.livejournal.com]

Thank you. You have articulated what I have been thinking far better than I can.

[intuition-ist.livejournal.com]

I think the US should go far away from the Gulf and never come back. Those dudes over there have been slaughtering each other over the same damn piece of broiling desert for 2000 years, and I don't really believe that anyone from the West can really affect that in any permanent way. The best we can do is try to hold back the tide until the crazies either die or are replaced by people with a modicum of sanity. When all the infighting and wars and sectarianism have either been resolved (through sufficient violence that most everyone is dead, or dropping of weapons that render that particular piece of the Earth uninhabitable, or however else it might happen -- notice I did not say anything about peace, or treaties, because I don't believe that anyone over there who is actually *in* the fight gives a good goddamn about either peace OR treaties), THEN we should decide how we want to treat the survivors.

When people have demonstrated, over and over, that they are ready, willing, and able to kill each other in as many nasty inventive ways as are possible, and that they are unwilling to listen to rational arguments as to why they shouldn't (oh, body count, for example), I'm generally willing to retreat to a safe distance and let them.

This approach, unfortunately, was rendered an impossible course of action by the re-formation of Israel after WWII. We have allies in the region, and we're trying to navigate a minefield of impossibilities. I'm just surprised that we've managed as well as we have so far.

And we should most definitely be helping the refugees. They didn't ask to be in the middle of a war zone, and they're doing their damnedest to leave. We should encourage this.

[drwex]

Thanks for the response. I am a fairly strong opponent of isolationism in all forms, but I recognize it as a position that has its own logic.

[woodwardiocom.livejournal.com]

Amidst much angst, I broadly agree with you. (And I think there are excellent arguments why I might be completely wrong, too.)

[drwex]

Yes! That's exactly the feeling I have about this - it's not something I can reason to as the 'right' thing to do, but it feels like a necessity. if Kerry's latest statement is to be believed, the US has evidence of at least 11 chemical attacks by the Assad regime and they seem to be getting bigger, as though he was escalating. I remain deeply suspicious of what the US gov't says, but I do believe the MSF field reports of medical personnel being injured while trying to treat the survivors. That disturbs me a great deal.

[whipchick.livejournal.com]

I think your analysis is spot-on - I wish we, as a nation, could take action in a more meaningful and constructive way than we are likely to be able to do.