Killing Them With Kindness... Only Without the Killing
Things over there in Syria are getting really intense really quickly. It's really alarming on all accounts- the fact of chemical weapons use, and the sheer scale of death and refugee creation in general, Iran and Israel's posturing (most people seem to ignore the roll Israel and its rhetoric plays in the constant brinksmanship over there), Russia's military movements… It's a sticky situation, and I doubt even the most informed layperson has nearly enough information to make any sort of decision. I just hope that those in power do.
Even with information, though, it's not easy. Obama is in quite a pickle; he talked himself into a corner with the "red line" comment. He is faced with a dilemma that's fundamental to most world leaders, actually: principles or immediate security concerns. In this case, standing up for our principles would jeopardize our national security, at least in some way: attacks could lead Syria to respond against Israel, and then the other countries would join in on various sides and things can get messy. National security generally trumps all other concerns by miles, so I tend to believe Obama when he says we aren't looking at full-scale war with boots on the ground. Especially with Congress urging caution and ready to deny authority.
Human life should be the primary concern, first and foremost, in any situation, period. So from that standpoint alone every effort should be made to avoid unneeded wars or acts of war. But something interesting I'm noticing about the Syria discussions is the money angle. I'm generally not a fan of nickel-and-diming things, especially human suffering/prospects/lives, but in this case I find it really a cause for hope in some important ways. We are still bleeding money from the Iraq war (started, ostensibly, to stop the use of WMDs that never existed. Which is a reason I think it's imperative that Obama releases the intelligence that proves they exist in Syria, so we don't have a repeat of that.) and I think people are finally realizing that there are better ways to spend our money than the war machine. Our deficit is high enough as it is.
So you get pieces like this one from The Atlantic, which makes the argument that there are much better uses of our money than a war. Slate goes even further, arguing that even a brief military strike would be horribly cost ineffective measure. I guess the arguments mostly depend on what the goal in Syria would be: consensus right now is that any action would be to enforce the international norm against chemical weapons use (the Washington Post explains this beautifully for anyone who isn't familiar). But, if the norm is international, it has to be enforced internationally. The US can't be its sole champion. I know that other nations agree with the ban (ostensibly, anyway; most still have stockpiles- even America), but they don't seem to be acting on those principles. The UN, as much as I wish it weren't so, has a horrible track record in terms of defending its own rules and principles.
What it is good at, though, is humanitarian work (for the most part. Ok, maybe I should say it's had the most success with humanitarian efforts versus anything else). The kind of on the ground, day to day work that doesn't lend itself to photo-ops or sound bites but that actually makes a difference in people's lives. It takes a while, true, but it does have an effect. Consensus is that the Syrian civil war will take a long time to resolve, too. And the fact is that we can't go back in time and un-make Assad use chemical weapons. And there's no guarantee that any strike we conducted would actually work as a deterrent to future instances of chemical warfare, particularly if we do it unilaterally. So preserving the norm as a rationale only makes sense in a narrow range of circumstances which may not materialize.
But I also understand Obama's impulse to do something, to stand up for the US's principles. I feel it too, the kind of moral idealism those like Woodrow Wilson had, and the sense of global citizenship and the desire for the US to use its position for good in the world. But given that military action may do more harm than good, may kill civilians, break the very international body of law we are trying to uphold, I don't think that is the way to stand by our principles. We want a peaceful world, so we shouldn't create more conflict. We want peace- but we also want the citizens of Syria, and elsewhere, to be safe and stable (I hope, anyway). We want them to be treated with dignity at minimum. Military action can't accomplish that, but humanitarian can.
Outlets like the Christian Science Monitor advocate for using aid to encourage Egypt to behave as we'd like it to. It talks of a new paradigm of aid being needed. Sure- what if that aid goes to the UN? Or more of it, anyway? The UN has programs in many of the countries the US already gives aid to, already has connections at the grassroots level where the help is really needed but seldom received; aid to governments rarely trickles down to actual citizens, merely bolsters the military or the economy and helps the upper classes. It has proven able to do good in people's lives. Like all those Syrian refugees, those 2 million children and counting: the UN would be poised to help them. Plus, giving to the UN has the added benefit of making Assad and other feel more secure in that the US isn't seen as bullying its way through sovereignty, which is why things are testy. If we are respectful of other nations, they may be more forgiving of us.
If we are going to be spending money in Syria, why not spend it in a positive way? (Because ay action requires the cost of labor, equipment, artillery etc etc) To quote Slate, "it's worth interrogating the larger political and ideological construct that says that spending a few billion dollars to help foreigners is a thinkable undertaking if and only if the means of providing assistance is to kill some people and blow some stuff up." Why is blowing stuff up our only appreciable solution to most world problems? That or providing materials for others to blow each other up. That kind of arms race led to the development of chemical weapons in the first place. So, maybe creating an environment where nations help each other instead of attack and undermine and spy on allies would decrease the appeal of them. At the very least, it would make the UN more grateful (or, cynically, a bit indebted) to us, and we could then have international support to enforce international norms.
Even with information, though, it's not easy. Obama is in quite a pickle; he talked himself into a corner with the "red line" comment. He is faced with a dilemma that's fundamental to most world leaders, actually: principles or immediate security concerns. In this case, standing up for our principles would jeopardize our national security, at least in some way: attacks could lead Syria to respond against Israel, and then the other countries would join in on various sides and things can get messy. National security generally trumps all other concerns by miles, so I tend to believe Obama when he says we aren't looking at full-scale war with boots on the ground. Especially with Congress urging caution and ready to deny authority.
Human life should be the primary concern, first and foremost, in any situation, period. So from that standpoint alone every effort should be made to avoid unneeded wars or acts of war. But something interesting I'm noticing about the Syria discussions is the money angle. I'm generally not a fan of nickel-and-diming things, especially human suffering/prospects/lives, but in this case I find it really a cause for hope in some important ways. We are still bleeding money from the Iraq war (started, ostensibly, to stop the use of WMDs that never existed. Which is a reason I think it's imperative that Obama releases the intelligence that proves they exist in Syria, so we don't have a repeat of that.) and I think people are finally realizing that there are better ways to spend our money than the war machine. Our deficit is high enough as it is.
So you get pieces like this one from The Atlantic, which makes the argument that there are much better uses of our money than a war. Slate goes even further, arguing that even a brief military strike would be horribly cost ineffective measure. I guess the arguments mostly depend on what the goal in Syria would be: consensus right now is that any action would be to enforce the international norm against chemical weapons use (the Washington Post explains this beautifully for anyone who isn't familiar). But, if the norm is international, it has to be enforced internationally. The US can't be its sole champion. I know that other nations agree with the ban (ostensibly, anyway; most still have stockpiles- even America), but they don't seem to be acting on those principles. The UN, as much as I wish it weren't so, has a horrible track record in terms of defending its own rules and principles.
What it is good at, though, is humanitarian work (for the most part. Ok, maybe I should say it's had the most success with humanitarian efforts versus anything else). The kind of on the ground, day to day work that doesn't lend itself to photo-ops or sound bites but that actually makes a difference in people's lives. It takes a while, true, but it does have an effect. Consensus is that the Syrian civil war will take a long time to resolve, too. And the fact is that we can't go back in time and un-make Assad use chemical weapons. And there's no guarantee that any strike we conducted would actually work as a deterrent to future instances of chemical warfare, particularly if we do it unilaterally. So preserving the norm as a rationale only makes sense in a narrow range of circumstances which may not materialize.
But I also understand Obama's impulse to do something, to stand up for the US's principles. I feel it too, the kind of moral idealism those like Woodrow Wilson had, and the sense of global citizenship and the desire for the US to use its position for good in the world. But given that military action may do more harm than good, may kill civilians, break the very international body of law we are trying to uphold, I don't think that is the way to stand by our principles. We want a peaceful world, so we shouldn't create more conflict. We want peace- but we also want the citizens of Syria, and elsewhere, to be safe and stable (I hope, anyway). We want them to be treated with dignity at minimum. Military action can't accomplish that, but humanitarian can.
Outlets like the Christian Science Monitor advocate for using aid to encourage Egypt to behave as we'd like it to. It talks of a new paradigm of aid being needed. Sure- what if that aid goes to the UN? Or more of it, anyway? The UN has programs in many of the countries the US already gives aid to, already has connections at the grassroots level where the help is really needed but seldom received; aid to governments rarely trickles down to actual citizens, merely bolsters the military or the economy and helps the upper classes. It has proven able to do good in people's lives. Like all those Syrian refugees, those 2 million children and counting: the UN would be poised to help them. Plus, giving to the UN has the added benefit of making Assad and other feel more secure in that the US isn't seen as bullying its way through sovereignty, which is why things are testy. If we are respectful of other nations, they may be more forgiving of us.
If we are going to be spending money in Syria, why not spend it in a positive way? (Because ay action requires the cost of labor, equipment, artillery etc etc) To quote Slate, "it's worth interrogating the larger political and ideological construct that says that spending a few billion dollars to help foreigners is a thinkable undertaking if and only if the means of providing assistance is to kill some people and blow some stuff up." Why is blowing stuff up our only appreciable solution to most world problems? That or providing materials for others to blow each other up. That kind of arms race led to the development of chemical weapons in the first place. So, maybe creating an environment where nations help each other instead of attack and undermine and spy on allies would decrease the appeal of them. At the very least, it would make the UN more grateful (or, cynically, a bit indebted) to us, and we could then have international support to enforce international norms.