Syria's Civil War.
Lower your voice and strengthen your argument. - Lebanese proverb
"What's coming in is overwhelmingly negative. There's no question about that. But you see, then, they don't know what I know."
- California Senator and Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Diane Feinstein responding to constituent opposition to a U.S. strike on Syria, September 5, 2013 in Washington, D.C.
Update #1:
Since the publication of this essay the United States, facing significant public and global opposition to its threat of imminent bombing runs on Syria, agreed instead to an internationally supervised accounting of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile to be followed by their destruction. Subsequently the U.S. has offered to take on the task of destroying the chemical weapons.
This approach is the good that came out of the public opposition to an plan that most U.S. leaders demanded as essential, and proves that the U.S. public not only knows what our representatives know but that we often know better.
Update #2:
Two years out the world continues to watch as Syria all but collapses under the constant destruction inflicted by its own government, rebel groups (aligned with and armed and financed by the U.S., Russia or sometimes both) and now directly by Russia. This is unimaginable horror and injustice inflicted upon a people who have the grave misfortune of living in a country that straddles the political divide between the conflicting interests of external governments that all want control of the Middle East.
The original post published September 2013:
Issue:
Syria is being destroyed by a civil war. The United States and the rest of the world have stood by for more than two years while Syrian government and rebel forces wage a firefight in the streets that has taken the lives of more than 100,000 people, injured and displaced millions more and destroyed most of the nation's infrastructure and economy, making life unbearably miserable for the survivors. Chemical weapons attacks on suburban Damascus have prompted the U.S. to consider military intervention.
Deception:
Domestic and international communities are debating whether the U.S. should intervene and if so, how. Endless discussions ensue as to the legal and moral justifications for intervention. Virtually all of it is deception because military intervention by the U.S. is neither a right nor a solution.
Reality:
Countries wage war not only on each other but on themselves. All of it is needless, unfortunate, ugly and generally mystifying because it is usually impossible to parse the reasons for, or the story of a conflict. The war we see is the war on the ground, the hand-to-hand, block-by-block, death-by-death battles that have been familiar events in human existence for all of recorded history. The war we do not see is composed of the larger battles waged in ways not readily evident, such as the struggles of other nations for regional and global power that often have little if anything to do with the besieged country aside from its geographic location and assets; the crime and exploitation committed by business to profit off the besieged country's resources; and the campaigns by both internal and external forces for commandeering political, religious or ethnic rule.
Regardless of the reasons for a civil conflict, military intervention by other nations is still intervention, more accurately labeled invasion and a violation of a nation's sovereignty. Consider for a moment our own history in the United States: we fought a civil war that lasted four years, resulted in more than 600,000 military casualties (exceeding the combined U.S. death tally for all foreign wars subsequently engaged), resulted in more than 50,000 civilian deaths and laid waste to much of our nation's infrastructure, industry and agriculture, especially in the South. No other nation intervened to stop the inhumane and catastrophic slaughter. We fought this war alone.
150 years later it would be difficult to find anyone who would agree that any other nation should have intervened to stop or alter the course of our civil war. Why? Because as horrific as it was, our civil war was our internal conflict that had to be settled from within. It was settled, at least on the battlefields of our forests, farmlands and cities, and a strong nation resulted at the cost of catastrophic death and destruction. It is a flawed nation to be sure, and we perhaps would be better off today (in some respects) if the South and North had separated and been allowed to pursue their own destinies - because today we fight our own kind of civil war, battling the endless and divisive issues that can too often be defined primarily along the Mason-Dixon line and its political and cultural extensions across the continent and which impede progress toward a better society. Still, it is our country and it was our own internal war. It was not for Britain or France or any other nation to intervene.
For the United States or any country to pretend that Syria's civil war is our business to control is only a pretext for our larger interests, those of political and economic power in the region. The United States does not care about military and civilian casualties or destruction of society except as a way to assuage our conscience or justify our own war-making. We pretend to cherish life and ostensibly cannot bear to witness the horrors committed against people, especially children. Yet our own actions in multiple wars waged by our government and corporations belie this concern, again and again and again. It is not the deaths that concern us, rather it is our nation's lack of power and influence. When our power and influence is used on our terms it is accepted as necessary, regardless of its horror or reason or cost. When our power and influence is disregarded we can no longer find any comfort in witnessing the death and destruction rained down upon others.
Is the Syrian conflict somehow different, more serious and compelling than other conflicts, such as our wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands or the atrocities committed by our allies China or Saudi Arabia against their own people? In many ways yes, in many others, no. This begs the questions: where do we draw the lines for acceptance of atrocities, whether committed by our own country or others, and is there ever a case for military intervention?
Resolution:
Not all conflicts require resolution. Even where they do, it is not required that all seven billion humans weigh in on the matter. The United States spends over $250 billion dollars each year to maintain a military presence spanning the globe and hundreds of billions more to wage the ongoing battles it engages, money desperately needed to address our own economic and social deficiencies. Yet we regularly fail to set the example we wish to see other countries follow. We engage in assassination, murder, torture, rendition, coup, theft and innumerable other violations of human rights using some of the most inhumane weapons available. Yet we express shock and outrage at these actions when committed by other governments or rebel forces and we expend money, resources and lives to confront the same violence to which we ourselves have long been addicted. In the process we are bankrupting our nation, financially and ethically.
It is not for us or Russia or China or any other nation to presume a right to intervene in a nation's domestic affairs. It is not our responsibility to wage war but it is our responsibility to wage diplomatic efforts to rectify the critical challenges that lead to war, civil or international. It is our responsibility to set an example for humane and democratic leadership that rises above the self-interests of our nation, the profits of our corporations and our larger global battles that exploit countries such as Syria as our pawns. To that end we should pursue, as a world leader, diplomatic and humanitarian efforts to bring an end to the suffering, but in a context of international effort, not in unilateral intervention.
The battle for Syria is a tragedy that cannot be effectively addressed with more tragedy and war. Shy of a unified international effort to remove President Bashar al-Assad, take control of the country and spend a generation or two in an attempt to put it back together with uncertain results, the civil war can only be brought to a close through internal machinations and external diplomacy. This is the front on which the U.S. and other interested parties to the Syrian conflict have failed to successfully engage.
The U.S., therefore, should make proactive efforts to work with the international community on bolstering organizations and treaties that are charged with defusing civil and international conflicts diplomatically, preferably before they reach the point of war. This also means that we must abide by the same treaties to which we hold other nations and must join and respect the determinations of world bodies. On these counts the U.S. is often remiss - which weakens our position on a conflict such as Syria's.
Update September 7, 2013:
In the week after this essay was initially published August 31st, the argument for U.S. intervention evolved in ways that can only be described as desperate:
• The horror of chemical weapons: this was the initial reason offered by President Obama and his allies in Congress for invading Syria. No one disputes that these weapons are inhumane regardless of who launched them. "Conventional" warfare is also inhumane and the sooner we stop deluding ourselves into drawing the line at chemical weapons, rather than at all weapons of death and destruction, the sooner we can move into a world where governments can no longer brandish the sword when the pens of communication, diplomacy and compromise can do. The next time someone mentions the horror of chemical weapons, ask them which weapons of war are acceptable, ask them which ones they would prefer to use instead, ask them to explain why bombing Syria with "conventional" weapons is acceptable. Remind them that many innocents will die at our hands. If someone asks you how we can stand by in the face of chemical weapons use, tell them we cannot - but that all actions we take must be diplomatic, not militaristic. We have that choice. We must also own up to our own complicity in the manufacture, use and spread of chemical weapons, land mines and drones - particularly as we have been aware, for years, of Syrian stockpiles and the likelihood of their use.
• Syria presents a security risk to the United States: this is deception. There is no known risk, imminent or otherwise, to the U.S. There may be risks to our business interests, our military control of foreign lands or our credibility but there are no security risks that require a declaration of war. If there are, President Obama and his allies in Congress must be immediately forthcoming with the U.S. public and the United Nations as to the nature, scope and irrefutable evidence of such risks.
• The President's credibility: as it has become increasingly apparent that a majority of U.S. citizens do not believe that use of chemical weapons is reason enough to bomb a sovereign nation that poses no direct or imminent threat to the U.S., the cheerleaders for bombing runs have picked up the "credibility" cause - as if the credibility of President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and a multitude of Congress members is somehow more important than a carefully considered diplomatic approach for Syria. If a "no" vote on the President's war request damages his credibility it will serve as a lesson to him and to future presidents to approach foreign affairs with more consideration and to be honest with our citizenry, rather than lying to us and the United Nations about the reasons for war. Had Congress mustered the courage to vote against President George W. Bush's dishonest requests to wage wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, more lives would have been saved than have been lost in Syria.
• U.S. credibility: it is perhaps a unique trait of the U.S. that we feel our nation's credibility stands on our ability and willingness to attack and punish other nations when they have not attacked us. This is not an approach suitable for the modern global society in which we live and on which we depend. Why do we believe we must be the world's unilaterally-operated police force? Perhaps it is our misguided and self-important belief that we, with our self-professed freedom and liberty and democracy, set the example for the rest of the world. The catch? We do not set the example. We have committed atrocities around the globe throughout our history against our own people as well as others. So although we offer much to the world we do not offer credibility, particularly in the wake of our fiasco in Iraq and our desperately inept approach to the catastrophe in Syria. Insofar as the Syrian civil war is concerned, is too late for credibility on the part of the U.S. We have neglected action on the Syrian civil war since its inception and now offer only more death and destruction.
• Bashar al-Assad must be punished: if this is our excuse for bombing Syria then we should instead actually punish President al-Assad, not his country's citizenry. President Obama has openly stated that he is not interested in taking out al-Assad, a president who believes his credibility is at stake and will stop at nothing to retain it, not even the destruction of his own nation. We see al-Assad's pride as folly but we currently witness it in our own leaders as well. We could bomb Syria to kingdom come but so long as al-Assad is left alone he will continue his role in the slaughter.
Perhaps President Obama should use one of his favored drones to take out al-Assad and spare Syria the wrath of our military - but it appears that the same sort of pandering offered by Democratic leaders in support of their President on Syria is preventing Mr. Obama from taking out another national president, one favored by Mr. Putin. It is sadly reminiscent of George W. Bush's pandering to his business partners, the bin Ladens of Saudi Arabia, by refusing to take out their beloved family member Osama - and the pandering of his predecessor president father to the Saudi Arabian government for providing military basis for our Middle East invasions, by suspending security clearance requirements for Saudis visiting the U.S., fifteen of whom then flew airplanes into U.S. landmarks on September 11, 2001. So much for punishing leaders who engage in mass destruction. So much for the war on terror.
• Syria is not the same as Iraq or Afghanistan, two invasions which have been thoroughly discredited: this is correct - it is not the same, it is different and not necessarily better or worse. Regardless, this is no excuse to bomb. It is not the particulars of the situation that matter here - it is the overarching principals of national sovereignty, U.S. abuse of power through unilateral action and our choice of destruction over diplomacy. President Bush and Congress were wrong - and lied - when they sent U.S. soldiers to their deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq. To justify our invasion of Syria by using our terribly flawed and destructive invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya as benchmarks for military action is outrageously misleading and blatantly disingenuous.
* U.S. influence in the Middle East: For more than two centuries the U.S. has so badly manipulated Middle Eastern affairs for our own supposed benefit that we no longer have any meaningful influence or control aside from our sad resort to invasion and destruction. Along with other nations we have corrupted the region in much the same way we have corrupted Central and Latin American affairs. All of this does more to endanger our own security than to ensure it. The U.S. needs a new doctrine regarding international affairs: a doctrine that respects sovereignty and political and economic systems that are not always to our liking; a doctrine that respects the world community through full participation in, and respect for, world governing bodies including the International Court and the United Nations; a doctrine that does not dictate economic policies to other countries but includes them in economic planning. A doctrine that truly sets an example for justice, peace, respect and equality that other nations will strive to model.
• Doubts about a possible transfer of Syria's chemical weapons to international monitors: such a transfer is one of many possible diplomatic solutions that need to be presented and pursued instead of military intervention. Proposed by the Russian government, the U.S. appears hesitant to embrace it, with both U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius preferring to continue their threat of war while insisting that the transfer must happen almost immediately. What is the rush? The U.S. and France have stood on the sidelines for more than two years while Syria is destroyed. Now the world watches as the major players in this conflict stumble over themselves in an effort to look as though they are each and individually the one in control while the destruction of Syria continues apace. It is a sad spectacle, and it is doubly sad the U.S. presents military force as its only leverage in this game. We are addicted to our military might at the expense of our diplomatic influence.
End Note:
Syria has a long and tumultuous history as a center for trade, culture, religion and conflict. Its numerous governments have been threatened and deposed from within and without. Its lands have been seized by force and appropriated by other countries and its borders have been altered by western powers while Syria itself has participated in foreign intervention. After a period of relative calm heavily impressed by the authoritarianism of one-party rule under President Bashar al-Asaad, civil demonstrations against the government took hold as offshoots of the Arab Spring in 2011.
It is important to understand that the current conflict began as a result of citizens protesting their government and their government attempting to retain control against the threat of rebel forces, and to question how such a threat would be handled by any government, including our own. For those who wish to see a quick and simple end to this conflict, whether through the peace of diplomacy or the war of intervention, there is little hope of satisfaction.
Regardless, the Syrian civil war will not be brought to a close by a U.S. intervention that runs the risk of making the situation worse, an intervention which will foster more resentment against our nation. Our President and his domestic allies do not tell us how they intend to see this process through to peace because they have no plan beyond bombing the population. U.S. citizens need to demand more of our government when it wishes to wage war in our name, starting with honesty and transparency and the choice of diplomacy over war. Contact the White House and your Congressional representatives and demand a diplomatic approach.
Click here for contact Information for Congress and the President.
Since the publication of this essay the United States, facing significant public and global opposition to its threat of imminent bombing runs on Syria, agreed instead to an internationally supervised accounting of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile to be followed by their destruction. Subsequently the U.S. has offered to take on the task of destroying the chemical weapons.
This approach is the good that came out of the public opposition to an plan that most U.S. leaders demanded as essential, and proves that the U.S. public not only knows what our representatives know but that we often know better.
Update #2:
Two years out the world continues to watch as Syria all but collapses under the constant destruction inflicted by its own government, rebel groups (aligned with and armed and financed by the U.S., Russia or sometimes both) and now directly by Russia. This is unimaginable horror and injustice inflicted upon a people who have the grave misfortune of living in a country that straddles the political divide between the conflicting interests of external governments that all want control of the Middle East.
The original post published September 2013:
Issue:
Syria is being destroyed by a civil war. The United States and the rest of the world have stood by for more than two years while Syrian government and rebel forces wage a firefight in the streets that has taken the lives of more than 100,000 people, injured and displaced millions more and destroyed most of the nation's infrastructure and economy, making life unbearably miserable for the survivors. Chemical weapons attacks on suburban Damascus have prompted the U.S. to consider military intervention.
Deception:
Domestic and international communities are debating whether the U.S. should intervene and if so, how. Endless discussions ensue as to the legal and moral justifications for intervention. Virtually all of it is deception because military intervention by the U.S. is neither a right nor a solution.
Reality:
Countries wage war not only on each other but on themselves. All of it is needless, unfortunate, ugly and generally mystifying because it is usually impossible to parse the reasons for, or the story of a conflict. The war we see is the war on the ground, the hand-to-hand, block-by-block, death-by-death battles that have been familiar events in human existence for all of recorded history. The war we do not see is composed of the larger battles waged in ways not readily evident, such as the struggles of other nations for regional and global power that often have little if anything to do with the besieged country aside from its geographic location and assets; the crime and exploitation committed by business to profit off the besieged country's resources; and the campaigns by both internal and external forces for commandeering political, religious or ethnic rule.
Regardless of the reasons for a civil conflict, military intervention by other nations is still intervention, more accurately labeled invasion and a violation of a nation's sovereignty. Consider for a moment our own history in the United States: we fought a civil war that lasted four years, resulted in more than 600,000 military casualties (exceeding the combined U.S. death tally for all foreign wars subsequently engaged), resulted in more than 50,000 civilian deaths and laid waste to much of our nation's infrastructure, industry and agriculture, especially in the South. No other nation intervened to stop the inhumane and catastrophic slaughter. We fought this war alone.
150 years later it would be difficult to find anyone who would agree that any other nation should have intervened to stop or alter the course of our civil war. Why? Because as horrific as it was, our civil war was our internal conflict that had to be settled from within. It was settled, at least on the battlefields of our forests, farmlands and cities, and a strong nation resulted at the cost of catastrophic death and destruction. It is a flawed nation to be sure, and we perhaps would be better off today (in some respects) if the South and North had separated and been allowed to pursue their own destinies - because today we fight our own kind of civil war, battling the endless and divisive issues that can too often be defined primarily along the Mason-Dixon line and its political and cultural extensions across the continent and which impede progress toward a better society. Still, it is our country and it was our own internal war. It was not for Britain or France or any other nation to intervene.
For the United States or any country to pretend that Syria's civil war is our business to control is only a pretext for our larger interests, those of political and economic power in the region. The United States does not care about military and civilian casualties or destruction of society except as a way to assuage our conscience or justify our own war-making. We pretend to cherish life and ostensibly cannot bear to witness the horrors committed against people, especially children. Yet our own actions in multiple wars waged by our government and corporations belie this concern, again and again and again. It is not the deaths that concern us, rather it is our nation's lack of power and influence. When our power and influence is used on our terms it is accepted as necessary, regardless of its horror or reason or cost. When our power and influence is disregarded we can no longer find any comfort in witnessing the death and destruction rained down upon others.
Is the Syrian conflict somehow different, more serious and compelling than other conflicts, such as our wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands or the atrocities committed by our allies China or Saudi Arabia against their own people? In many ways yes, in many others, no. This begs the questions: where do we draw the lines for acceptance of atrocities, whether committed by our own country or others, and is there ever a case for military intervention?
Resolution:
Not all conflicts require resolution. Even where they do, it is not required that all seven billion humans weigh in on the matter. The United States spends over $250 billion dollars each year to maintain a military presence spanning the globe and hundreds of billions more to wage the ongoing battles it engages, money desperately needed to address our own economic and social deficiencies. Yet we regularly fail to set the example we wish to see other countries follow. We engage in assassination, murder, torture, rendition, coup, theft and innumerable other violations of human rights using some of the most inhumane weapons available. Yet we express shock and outrage at these actions when committed by other governments or rebel forces and we expend money, resources and lives to confront the same violence to which we ourselves have long been addicted. In the process we are bankrupting our nation, financially and ethically.
It is not for us or Russia or China or any other nation to presume a right to intervene in a nation's domestic affairs. It is not our responsibility to wage war but it is our responsibility to wage diplomatic efforts to rectify the critical challenges that lead to war, civil or international. It is our responsibility to set an example for humane and democratic leadership that rises above the self-interests of our nation, the profits of our corporations and our larger global battles that exploit countries such as Syria as our pawns. To that end we should pursue, as a world leader, diplomatic and humanitarian efforts to bring an end to the suffering, but in a context of international effort, not in unilateral intervention.
The battle for Syria is a tragedy that cannot be effectively addressed with more tragedy and war. Shy of a unified international effort to remove President Bashar al-Assad, take control of the country and spend a generation or two in an attempt to put it back together with uncertain results, the civil war can only be brought to a close through internal machinations and external diplomacy. This is the front on which the U.S. and other interested parties to the Syrian conflict have failed to successfully engage.
The U.S., therefore, should make proactive efforts to work with the international community on bolstering organizations and treaties that are charged with defusing civil and international conflicts diplomatically, preferably before they reach the point of war. This also means that we must abide by the same treaties to which we hold other nations and must join and respect the determinations of world bodies. On these counts the U.S. is often remiss - which weakens our position on a conflict such as Syria's.
Update September 7, 2013:
In the week after this essay was initially published August 31st, the argument for U.S. intervention evolved in ways that can only be described as desperate:
• The horror of chemical weapons: this was the initial reason offered by President Obama and his allies in Congress for invading Syria. No one disputes that these weapons are inhumane regardless of who launched them. "Conventional" warfare is also inhumane and the sooner we stop deluding ourselves into drawing the line at chemical weapons, rather than at all weapons of death and destruction, the sooner we can move into a world where governments can no longer brandish the sword when the pens of communication, diplomacy and compromise can do. The next time someone mentions the horror of chemical weapons, ask them which weapons of war are acceptable, ask them which ones they would prefer to use instead, ask them to explain why bombing Syria with "conventional" weapons is acceptable. Remind them that many innocents will die at our hands. If someone asks you how we can stand by in the face of chemical weapons use, tell them we cannot - but that all actions we take must be diplomatic, not militaristic. We have that choice. We must also own up to our own complicity in the manufacture, use and spread of chemical weapons, land mines and drones - particularly as we have been aware, for years, of Syrian stockpiles and the likelihood of their use.
• Syria presents a security risk to the United States: this is deception. There is no known risk, imminent or otherwise, to the U.S. There may be risks to our business interests, our military control of foreign lands or our credibility but there are no security risks that require a declaration of war. If there are, President Obama and his allies in Congress must be immediately forthcoming with the U.S. public and the United Nations as to the nature, scope and irrefutable evidence of such risks.
• The President's credibility: as it has become increasingly apparent that a majority of U.S. citizens do not believe that use of chemical weapons is reason enough to bomb a sovereign nation that poses no direct or imminent threat to the U.S., the cheerleaders for bombing runs have picked up the "credibility" cause - as if the credibility of President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and a multitude of Congress members is somehow more important than a carefully considered diplomatic approach for Syria. If a "no" vote on the President's war request damages his credibility it will serve as a lesson to him and to future presidents to approach foreign affairs with more consideration and to be honest with our citizenry, rather than lying to us and the United Nations about the reasons for war. Had Congress mustered the courage to vote against President George W. Bush's dishonest requests to wage wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, more lives would have been saved than have been lost in Syria.
• U.S. credibility: it is perhaps a unique trait of the U.S. that we feel our nation's credibility stands on our ability and willingness to attack and punish other nations when they have not attacked us. This is not an approach suitable for the modern global society in which we live and on which we depend. Why do we believe we must be the world's unilaterally-operated police force? Perhaps it is our misguided and self-important belief that we, with our self-professed freedom and liberty and democracy, set the example for the rest of the world. The catch? We do not set the example. We have committed atrocities around the globe throughout our history against our own people as well as others. So although we offer much to the world we do not offer credibility, particularly in the wake of our fiasco in Iraq and our desperately inept approach to the catastrophe in Syria. Insofar as the Syrian civil war is concerned, is too late for credibility on the part of the U.S. We have neglected action on the Syrian civil war since its inception and now offer only more death and destruction.
• Bashar al-Assad must be punished: if this is our excuse for bombing Syria then we should instead actually punish President al-Assad, not his country's citizenry. President Obama has openly stated that he is not interested in taking out al-Assad, a president who believes his credibility is at stake and will stop at nothing to retain it, not even the destruction of his own nation. We see al-Assad's pride as folly but we currently witness it in our own leaders as well. We could bomb Syria to kingdom come but so long as al-Assad is left alone he will continue his role in the slaughter.
Perhaps President Obama should use one of his favored drones to take out al-Assad and spare Syria the wrath of our military - but it appears that the same sort of pandering offered by Democratic leaders in support of their President on Syria is preventing Mr. Obama from taking out another national president, one favored by Mr. Putin. It is sadly reminiscent of George W. Bush's pandering to his business partners, the bin Ladens of Saudi Arabia, by refusing to take out their beloved family member Osama - and the pandering of his predecessor president father to the Saudi Arabian government for providing military basis for our Middle East invasions, by suspending security clearance requirements for Saudis visiting the U.S., fifteen of whom then flew airplanes into U.S. landmarks on September 11, 2001. So much for punishing leaders who engage in mass destruction. So much for the war on terror.
• Syria is not the same as Iraq or Afghanistan, two invasions which have been thoroughly discredited: this is correct - it is not the same, it is different and not necessarily better or worse. Regardless, this is no excuse to bomb. It is not the particulars of the situation that matter here - it is the overarching principals of national sovereignty, U.S. abuse of power through unilateral action and our choice of destruction over diplomacy. President Bush and Congress were wrong - and lied - when they sent U.S. soldiers to their deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq. To justify our invasion of Syria by using our terribly flawed and destructive invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya as benchmarks for military action is outrageously misleading and blatantly disingenuous.
* U.S. influence in the Middle East: For more than two centuries the U.S. has so badly manipulated Middle Eastern affairs for our own supposed benefit that we no longer have any meaningful influence or control aside from our sad resort to invasion and destruction. Along with other nations we have corrupted the region in much the same way we have corrupted Central and Latin American affairs. All of this does more to endanger our own security than to ensure it. The U.S. needs a new doctrine regarding international affairs: a doctrine that respects sovereignty and political and economic systems that are not always to our liking; a doctrine that respects the world community through full participation in, and respect for, world governing bodies including the International Court and the United Nations; a doctrine that does not dictate economic policies to other countries but includes them in economic planning. A doctrine that truly sets an example for justice, peace, respect and equality that other nations will strive to model.
• Doubts about a possible transfer of Syria's chemical weapons to international monitors: such a transfer is one of many possible diplomatic solutions that need to be presented and pursued instead of military intervention. Proposed by the Russian government, the U.S. appears hesitant to embrace it, with both U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius preferring to continue their threat of war while insisting that the transfer must happen almost immediately. What is the rush? The U.S. and France have stood on the sidelines for more than two years while Syria is destroyed. Now the world watches as the major players in this conflict stumble over themselves in an effort to look as though they are each and individually the one in control while the destruction of Syria continues apace. It is a sad spectacle, and it is doubly sad the U.S. presents military force as its only leverage in this game. We are addicted to our military might at the expense of our diplomatic influence.
End Note:
Syria has a long and tumultuous history as a center for trade, culture, religion and conflict. Its numerous governments have been threatened and deposed from within and without. Its lands have been seized by force and appropriated by other countries and its borders have been altered by western powers while Syria itself has participated in foreign intervention. After a period of relative calm heavily impressed by the authoritarianism of one-party rule under President Bashar al-Asaad, civil demonstrations against the government took hold as offshoots of the Arab Spring in 2011.
It is important to understand that the current conflict began as a result of citizens protesting their government and their government attempting to retain control against the threat of rebel forces, and to question how such a threat would be handled by any government, including our own. For those who wish to see a quick and simple end to this conflict, whether through the peace of diplomacy or the war of intervention, there is little hope of satisfaction.
Regardless, the Syrian civil war will not be brought to a close by a U.S. intervention that runs the risk of making the situation worse, an intervention which will foster more resentment against our nation. Our President and his domestic allies do not tell us how they intend to see this process through to peace because they have no plan beyond bombing the population. U.S. citizens need to demand more of our government when it wishes to wage war in our name, starting with honesty and transparency and the choice of diplomacy over war. Contact the White House and your Congressional representatives and demand a diplomatic approach.
Click here for contact Information for Congress and the President.