Syria: Crises of Complex Proportions

Syria is a crises that tears at our hearts when we hear of innocent civilians massacred, most recently gassed to death.  Over 100,000 have died, a number equivalent to the population of my home town of Cambridge, Massachusetts.

As Americans, we always ask "What should we do?"  We are a people that like to take action.  I think we feel better about ourselves when we take definitive action.  We like our action movies when the hero takes immediate action and gets back at the enemy.

We are more divided when it comes to nations that are neither our close friends or our enemies.  It took a lot of demonizing of Iraq before the Bush administration pushed for the ill-conceived invasion of Iraq.   We were divided about taking action in Kosovo, when we intervened for humanitarian reasons to stop the "ethnic cleansing." 

In the first case, the left generally opposed intervention while in the second, the right was generally non-interventionist.  While there are some who are non-interventionists in all situations, the 2 major political parties seem to see-saw back and forth on the question of when to intervene.

With this landscape, we come to September 2013 and the question of Syria.  President Obama looked like he'd announce a plan of definitive action, likely a missile strike against some Syrian military facility in retribution for stepping over the line with the use of deadly gas.  But, then he pulled back and tossed the hot potato to Congress.  Was this an act of an indecisive leader or a shrewd politician who knew he'd get a 80% negative rating on any decision he could make?  Was he wise to seek political consensus?

Immediately, we saw that Congress is all over the map on what to do in Syria.  Sen. McCain criticized the President for backing down from action, saying it would embolden our enemies.  But other Republicans opposed action, while some were for it depending on certain conditions.  Democrats were also all over the map, from supporting action to saying no military action should be taken under any conditions.  Weariness of the decades-long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq also feed into the political debate.  Also, many have a "we won't get fooled again" perspective, recalling how many were duped about Iraq's weapon arsenal in order to justify that war.

What to do?

Any action should be informed by a good understanding of the nation, its issues and its peoples.  This link is one a number of Syria 101 articles that are worth a read.  The article has many links to other articles and videos.

Does it help?

I found that about 50% through it I came to understand why in the US you'll hear about a dozen different perspectives from politicians.  Each tidbit of information on its own might lead to concluding on one approach for intervention or non-intervention.

Taken together, you might come to the same conclusion as Pres. Obama:  let's throw this out there for a debate on the issue.

I keep teetering between non-intervention and the urge to take action against the state-sponsored atrocities from murder of civilians (including children) to the use of deadly gas on civilians.  These are humanitarian crimes that cry out to heaven.  If not us, who will act?

But, I know that while definitive action may feel good, any action, any support for any side may have unanticipated negative consequences.  And increasing the level of warfare may not lead to a workable solution.

My recommendation would be to gather a coalition of our allies, the UN, and the Arab League to negotiate a cease fire and peace talks.  We need to end the bloodshed that is devastating Syria.  But peace, not more warfare, is the way.

Obama’s Nobel Prize Speech Pleases No One

Few were happy with President Obama’s speech after receiving the Nobel Prize for Peace in Olso this week. It was the Peace Prize he won, but his speech certainly did not ring of “Let’s give peace a chance.” Rather, at times, it sounded more like a war speech and not a peace speech.

He reminded the audience in City Hall in Oslo that the United States is still in two wars. Just days before he announced his intentions to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. He even touched on echoes of the Bush/Cheney doctrine of a “special role” for the US along with its justifications for the US to take pre-emptive acts. At times, it sounded like he was formulating an Obama Just War Theory. He argued that evil exist in the world and that, at times, nations must take up arms to defeat this evil.

View from the Left
Those are the left were not so pleased with this position. Protesters in Oslo carried banners saying “You’ve won it, now earn it.” Many had hope that Obama would have started bringing troops home from both Iraq and Afghanistan by now. Others, including myself (see blog post), questioned giving Obama the Peace Prize without a track record to earn it.

Some commentators on the left (like Daniel Schorr on NPR and the New York Times editorial) thought his more balanced evaluation of the realities of international relations and even that his speech was elegant.

But is it just me, or does this thought pass your mind: it's like a minor "slap in the face" to your hosts to accept a peace prize while expounding theories of just wars?

View from the Right
I am sure this speech gained no traction with the right. Those who admire Sarah Palin or listen to Rush Limbaugh or agree with the ideas espoused by the “tea party” activists – most of these every day folks who are conservative thinking simply don’t trust Obama. From the right, Obama does not respect our country; he does not love America. And nothing he may say is likely to ever change their view.

Why Alienate Everyone?
Obama is an intellectual, a nerd if you will. As a fellow nerd, I can understand how he wants to intellectually balance all the input he has received on matters of war and peace. Having balanced all these conflicting viewpoints, he as formulated his own middle path that meanders through the issues, sometimes leaning right and sometimes leaning left. And often departing from previously stated positions, as I suspect he (like I) get a certain intellectual pleasure of coming down on a position that would have been unexpected before hand.

In short, before Obama was a liberal, he was a nerd. And this is what you’ll get from a president who is a nerd: a policy that, while intellectually sound, can baffle most of the people and please almost no one.

Obama Wins Nobel Peace Award! (But Why?)

So President Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize. But the first reaction of many is to ask “Why?”

While I appreciate their consideration of our new president, I think the popular response in America is “He hasn’t done anything yet!”

Supporters and opponents of the president alike are equally surprised and a bid dumfounded.

But this award shows the dichotomy of perception of Obama here in America vs. abroad. In Europe and elsewhere, Obama’s election as president was seen as a welcome change, a new dawn, a sea change in America’s attitude and policy on the international stage. Thus, it is no surprise that in Europe this award is highly lauded.

Still, in the US, even those who support Obama think it’s premature. Others note that the war is ongoing in Iraq and there is not troupe reduction there. And in Afghanistan, many point to the irony of a peace award given to a leader pondering a troupe build-up. In addition, Guantanamo still holds unindicted prisoners and Obama supports renewing key provisions of the Patriot Act.

An interesting sidebar: Republicans and the Taliban are equally critical of awarding the prize to Obama.

So why did Obama win? To me, the award is based on a perception abroad that Obama’s election represents a major sea change in American attitude and policy on international affairs. And, in some circles, international diplomacy being one, perception is reality. For many, it’s not the facts, it’s the attitude or the words.

But still, wouldn’t you feel better if it was someone or a group, maybe not well known to the rest of the world, working for years to bring justice and peace in their land?