“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
— American philosopher George Santayana (1863–1952)
“Every successful revolution puts on in time the robes of the tyrant it has deposed.”
— American historian Barbara Tuchman (1912–1989)
Americans love historical reenactments. In the Deep South, actors at historic mansions dress up as plantation owners and Southern belles. On both sides of the Mason-Dixon line, Civil War battles fought 150 years ago are reenacted regularly. Last week, 100,000 people went to Washington, DC, to commemorate the speech Martin Luther King, Jr., gave 50 years ago, in which he said, “I have a dream.”
Even the president and secretary of state are doing some reenacting. They’ve moved warships close to a Middle Eastern country run by a vile dictator, said to be a sponsor of terrorism. The dictator, they say, has used chemical weapons against his own people. The evidence of this comes from a foreign source, and no one else is really able to look at it. Nonetheless, the president and secretary of state claim an immediate danger to either the United States or to all nations. They dismiss an independent UN investigation as irrelevant, because the UN Security Council would not support a military intervention anyway.
Obama and Kerry are sounding a lot like Bush and Powell
Ten years and six months after George W. Bush and Colin Powell went through this scenario with Iraq, Barack Obama and John Kerry are doing the same thing with Syria. Yes, Obama and Kerry, the candidates who criticized Bush and Powell over the Iraq War in the 2004 and 2008 elections. Although Bush’s goal was “regime change” and Obama’s is only “a limited strike”, there is just as much potential for things to get out of control.
George W. Bush often made unpopular announcements on a Friday, when people weren’t watching the news. Obama gave his speech about a possible strike on Syria on a Friday afternoon before a Monday holiday. When Bush wanted people to pay attention, he’d give a speech on a Wednesday evening. So if Obama gives a speech on Syria on Wednesday, September 11, watch out.
Kerry, the optimist
The situation in Syria raises many questions, some of which were asked of John Kerry yesterday in three and a half hours of testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Kerry offered a lot of optimism, but very little in the way of answers.
• Is the case against the Syrian regime really a slam-dunk? Kerry said yesterday that it simply is, and he therefore does not have to explain it. When pressed, he said the details were in classified reports.
• Why was the death of 100,000 civilians by conventional weapons not worthy of a response, but the death of “at least 1,429 people, including 426 children” (in Kerry’s words) by a particular type of weapon is? Kerry recalled the poison-gas attacks of World War I and the reasons why nearly all countries agreed to outlaw chemical weapons. If action is not taken, he said, Syria will use them more often and other countries will also use them.
• Who exactly is the Syrian opposition? Kerry says they’re
“moderates”. Some Republicans say they’re either Al Qaeda or allied with Al Qaeda. Who’s right?
• Can Obama attack Syria without permission from Congress? Obama and Kerry say yes. Congress says no. Kerry said a single night of bombing is not “war” in the conventional sense, because soldiers would not be invading. The senators disagreed, wondering what would happen if Syria struck back.
• What if Congress doesn’t give its permission? Kerry’s answer: it will. A better answer is that a no vote from Congress didn’t stop Obama from getting involved in Libya, albeit with some legitimacy from the international community.
• Why is it the job of the United States to be the world’s policeman? Kerry said, basically, that if the US didn’t act, nobody would. Another possible answer could be that somebody else might.
• Could a strike against Syria lead to a war with Russia? The US now has six warships parked in front of Syria. Russia has four, which the US believes Russia is using to supply Syria with weapons and money. General Martin Dempsey, who accompanied Kerry to the hearing yesterday, says he’s optimistic that Russia will stay out of the way, should the US fire its missiles.
• And the question that came up over and over: Could a limited strike send the wrong message? Syria could say it stood up to a US attack; its ally Iran might really want a nuclear bomb; and Russia would spread its own domino theory of Western hegemony. Kerry’s answer: trust us; it won’t happen.
Fighting fire with fire?
An attack on Syria has the potential to be noble and vile in equal measure; fighting fire with fire, one act of aggression with another, hoping that two wrongs will make a right. That said, there are good reasons for somebody to attack Syria — none of which have to do with any specific incident — and the only country capable of doing it (besides Israel) is the United States.
• The Basher (Syria’s king, Bashar al-Assad) has acted with unbelievable cruelty, sending out his Gestapo to track down, arrest and torture anyone with a contrary opinion. Bodily mutilation and amputation are everyday atrocities.
• Two million refugees from Syria have poured into Turkey and Jordan, which have already had to absorb a similar number of Iraqi refugees.
• Interventions have worked before, in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Yugoslavia and Rwanda — although by a multinational force, after the damage had already been done, and when both sides were tired of fighting.
One thing shouldn’t be forgotten, though. Syrians in general are skeptical of American intentions in the Middle East. We would not be welcomed as liberators. Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry may find this to be a very risky course of action.
Update, September 11: OK, Obama’s speech was on Tuesday night, September 10. There was some new information about progress toward a diplomatic solution involving Russia, among other things, in the 15 minutes he spoke.
