Defending the People of Syria

On August 21st, chemical weapons killed a lot of civilians, including children, in a suburb in Damascus. The chemicals have been identified as sarin and VX. That part is not in question.

How many people were killed? President Obama says 1429, of which 426 were children. Prime Minister Ayrault of France says "at least 281". Well, 1429 is definitely more than 281; let that pass.

Who deployed the weapons? The US says it has overwhelming and convincing evidence (though they admit it's circumstantial) that Bashar al-Assad, the President of Syria, attacked his own people. Presumably he was attacking one of the several opposition groups. France is likewise convinced it was Assad.

And that is not at all unlikely. There is no doubt that Assad is a nasty sort, who has on numerous occasions used deadly force on opponents of his regime. Most sources estimate that he has killed over 100,000 of his own people. Over two million Syrians have fled to refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey, Iraq, and Egypt. An additional 4 million are estimated to have been displaced domestically.

This is bad. Civil war is always bad. And this one is especially confusing, because there is not just one opposition (rebel) group. There are at least a dozen, and they seem to attack one another as well as Assad's Ba'athist party government.

So what makes this attack so different from the rest, so much more worthy of action? Chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are against the international rules for war. [Did you know we have international rules for war? I'm sure you've heard of the Geneva Conventions. This is part of the same international agreements.]  The idea is that chemical weapons are especially horrific, because when deployed they are as likely to affect civilians as combatants, and cause unnecessary suffering.  Personally, I think that's a bit disingenuous; are they worse than carpet bombs? Than atomic bombs? Isn't the tear gas used in riot control a chemical weapon? and just what constitutes "necessary" suffering?

In any case, stating the egregious nature of chemical weapon use, President Obama plans to take military action against Assad's regime in retribution. And France is willing to support us.

Of course, American assertions that we have overwhelming evidence that Assad is the perpetrator [but we won't release it] is not playing well in the international arena. For one thing, we do not have a great track record. The world is somewhat skeptical.

Assad has denied making the attack, saying it would have been "illogical" for him to do so.

Vladimir Putin, President of Russia concurs. He says the idea is absurd; Assad is winning the civil war and such a move would be foolish. His objection is important, because Russia has a veto on the UN Security Council. Without Russia's consent, the UN cannot legally order foreign military intervention in a domestic dispute. In other words, no UN troops.

Britain says the matter has not been proven; they want to wait for the UN inspector's report. That's not unreasonable, frankly.  Britain is important because without them, the US can't claim to have NATO backing.

Dale Gavlak, a credible reporter who has written for AP, PBS, the BBC, and Salon, says certain Syrian rebels have admitted that the release of gas was an accident that occurred when they mishandled chemical weapons supplied to them by Saudi Arabia.

So yes, the waters are muddy as to whether Assad is really at fault.

But let's assume the US intelligence is correct, and Assad really did use chemical weapons against his own people.

What do we plan to accomplish by sending missiles against Syria? We plan to "punish" Assad. How exactly does sending misses do that? We may take out some military installations, which may weaken his military power. What does it do politically? Obama has stated that the goal was NOT regime change; we are not looking to topple Assad. But if we weaken Assad's military power, the various opposition groups will see that as an opportunity to attempt to seize power. The civil war will undoubtedly worsen.

A US attack would have other completely predictable consequences:

• It will kill many innocent Syrian civilians, probably more than were killed in the chemical attacks. Do they care if they are killed by bombs or chemicals? 
• It will cause patriotic Syrians to come together to fight this foreign incursion. I am amazed how often we forget this. An outside attack ALWAYS brings people together against a common enemy. 
• It will be seen as American aggression throughout the Middle East, and probably recruit many more people into anti-American groups such as al-Qaeda.
• We, not Assad, will be committing an act of war that could trigger UN action - against the US, not against Syria. Of course, as a Security Council member, we don't really have to worry; we'll just veto any proposed actions against us. 

The American people (most of them) do not want to go to war. Right now, Congress is frantically drafting motions that would limit the extent of the military action. No "boots on ground". Can't last more than 60 days. No Americans killed (if possible). But why go to war at all?

"We can't let this atrocity stand!" said the president. In principle, I agree. I think we DO have a moral duty to defend the helpless. But this sort of war doesn't defend anything except our pride. War KILLS the helpless. It ensures that the conflict continues. The helpless are made more helpless, or  else are radicalized.

If we truly want to defend the helpless, we should take three steps:

First, take the millions —or billions—of dollars that we would spend on bombs and use it for humanitarian aid to the refugee camps. The conditions in those camps are atrocious, and that's 2 million of the helpless we can help without even entering Syria. We can also offer asylum —issue  refugee visas —to those who want to leave the area, and perhaps get other countries to do the same.

Second, turn over to the International Criminal Court at the Hague our intelligence that is supposed to be so ironclad. Convince the world of Assad's guilt. Convince his allies. Convince the Arab League. Convince the Syrian people. We do not need to act unilaterally. We are not the George Zimmerman of the international world, doling out vigilante justice. The ICC exists specifically to try individuals for crimes against humanity, for genocide, and for war crimes. That is their sole mandate. Let us support international law, rather than bypass it, or worse, break those laws ourselves.

Third, pass a bill in Congress that would freeze any Syrian economic assets in our control. This would probably have a greater affect on the Assad government than bombing. And it is possible that a sanction like this would have another effect.

Freezing assets is the sort of sanction that the UN Economic and Social Council (the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Fund, and the Human Rights Commission) normally could order, EXCEPT for the pesky little detail that their jurisdiction is limited to its signatories (and Syria is not a signatory). Besides, the UN has no authority over a country's internal matters. However, if Congress were to duly and legally pass such a bill, that would make it a trade dispute between countries, and it might provide a back door through which the UN could claim jurisdiction.

-----------

Actually, I am HOPING that something like this is what Obama is really after, in calling for Congressional approval for action. The pundits are saying it is a huge gamble for him. But how big a gamble was it, really?

If Congress votes for military action, then Congress shares the culpability. Plus, it means they have to agree with Obama. Not a minor win, considering the number of war hawks who seem to want to obstruct Obama on principle.  If Congress passes it, Obama can't be accused of acting unilaterally. However, the American people are generally against another military intervention. Because of that, Congress will probably be slow to act, wanting to first assess the political effect of their vote on their approval ratings.

If Congress does NOT give its approval, then Obama can do one of three things. He can order military action without their approval, and risk being called a vigilante (but it would assert his stated authority to act without approval). He can bow to Congress's wishes and NOT send bombs. Some would see this as a defeat of the president, others would see this as a win for peace. A third option would be for the president to offer a compromise in the form of sanctions. The war hawks, frustrated that they had to vote against military action to thwart Obama, would probably pass some form of sanctions.

I am hoping that Obama has thought all this through. I am hoping that he is maneuvering to have Congress give the UN and the ICC what they need to take action under international law.

You see, internal affairs of nations - and a civil war is an internal affair - are not subject to the authority of the UN unless the Security Council votes to intervene. Russia has said they will veto any such authority. Without that approval, the UN can't legally intervene. Military action by the US does NOT give the UN any jurisdiction to come into Syria; in fact, it is itself a violation of international law.

But if Congress duly passes a bill freezing assets, that creates a trade dispute and opens the door to action by the UNESCO agencies, which are NOT controlled by the Security Council.

Obama, the Professor of Constitutional Law, is surely aware of this. I hope so, anyway.

Outrage Fatigue

I have a friend who sends me political snippets and action alerts.  Sometimes a dozen or so a day. And they are all good causes. But it's too much, and too scatter-shot.

I finally made a filter just for her, and once a week or so I look to see what she's sent. And then I delete most of them. She is so outraged, and so willing to find a dastardly conspiracy behind everything, that I have to stop listening. Remember the story of the boy who cried wolf?

That may be the point. This interesting blog  (pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com) proposes that at least some of the outrageous proposed legislation is being proposed just to provoke outrage. Yelling on both sides just makes the uncommitted public tune out the argument. "They're both equally bad, and equally at fault," they think.

If you are a minority party, this is a good, albeit risky, strategy. Risky, because you don't want to energize the uncommitted. You want them so uncommitted that they won't vote.

The committed opponents won't vote for you anyway. But you may fracture their solidarity. You can bring up issues that are contentious even within their ranks. By carefully framing the issues so that some react with extreme outrage, you may get the moderates to distance themselves from the extremists. The moderates may give up in disgust if their colleagues start sounding like conspiracy theorists. Or they may simply become confused by the shouting. Either way, if you can split them, you will be closer to gaining a majority come voting day.

Once in power, you can drop the extreme proposals. You can do it under the guise of being misunderstood at the start, or you can say you are being responsive to the constituency. You never need to say it was all just a ploy to start with.

The moral for us on the other side: don't fall into the outrage trap. If the issues are being provocatively addressed, don't rise to the bait.  Recognize that in many cases there is a real concern being addressed. Respectfully consider what is being proposed, and answer intelligently. Point out an alternative solution to the concern, rather than just reacting violently to their proposal.

This isn't a game. It's not a matter of winners and losers. They are not unalloyed evil, we are not unalloyed good. Both sides want what they think is best for this country. I happen to think that their vision is corrupted by entrenched special interests and a selfish lack of empathy for others. They probably think mine is starry-eyed and unrealistic. But in the end, we will all be travelling this road together.

Mother's Day

Today, Mother's Day is a day for pampering Mom, for giving her chocolates and flowers and breakfast in bed.

Its origins, however, lie with Julia Ward Howe, the woman who wrote the Battle Hymn of the Republic. The carnage of the Civil War so distressed her that she called on mothers everywhere, as natural peacemakers, to prevent the killing of sons by other women's sons. In 1870 she proposed:

"That a general congress of women, without limit of nationality, may be appointed and held at some place deemed most convenient and at the earliest period consistent with its objects to promote the alliance of the different nationalities, the amicable settlement of international questions, the great and general interests of peace."

Needless to say, this general congress of women (a good 50 years before women were given the right to vote) never occurred. Some cities did celebrate the day for a time.

Anna Reeves Jarvis, some years later, recast the holiday as Mother's Friendship Day, in an attempt to heal some of the families split by the Civil War. Instead of being anti-war per se, the emphasis was on reconciliation and healing. But as the need faded with time, so did the holiday.

But then in 1908, after ARJ's death, her daughter Anna M. Jarvis revived a Mother's Day celebration in remembrance of her mother. And third time's the charm.

The anti-war message had been transformed into honoring mothers, something everyone could get behind, and they did. In 1914 Woodrow Wilson declared a national Mother's Day celebration. Commercial interests began exploiting the sentiment. Anna, who had lobbied for the creation of the holiday, now began to fight its commercialization. She wrote,

"What will you do to route charlatans, bandits, pirates, racketeers, kidnappers and other termites that would undermine with their greed one of the finest, noblest and truest movements and celebrations?” 

Jarvis's opposition did little to stem the tide of commercialism, and today Mother's Day is about a 16 billion dollar industry. The origin of the day as an anti-war effort are mostly forgotten.

Perhaps I am cynical, but I think the success of Mother's day is entirely due to that commercialism. Sentiment is easily commercialized. Reconciliation is tougher.  Our society treats reconciliation with suspicion; victims and perpetrators are kept apart, and divorce lawyers assume unending hostility between the parties. "Closure" is assumed to mean punishment, not reconciliation. Not something that lends itself to commercialization.

And the original proposal, that mothers settle differences to keep their sons from killing each other, is downright unsettling; it completely upends the political and economic order. Politicians don't WANT mommy telling them they should play nicely.

A sentimental Mother's day needs no importance other than remembering and honoring Mom. And, in true American style, just maybe spending a lot of money on her.