The impetus for this ramble/screed is a piece I read this morning in favor of action in Syria. The Dilemma of Syria In this piece Bill Tammeus compares the current crisis to Munich. It is a little off the mark in my view. Using his essay as a jumping off point, I ramble on below the fold.
Still, I cannot get Munich in 1938 out of my mind, when British leader Neville Chamberlain wrongly believed (or maybe just hoped) he had appeased Adolf Hitler enough to stop him from trying to devour Europe.
Ah, an opinion piece favoring action in Syria on the basis of an appeasement argument. Most pieces oppose action, mostly arguing that we’ll be drawn into something we can’t control, that we won’t achieve much, or that we’ll be supporting groups affiliated with Al Qaeda.
I'm not sure Neville Chamberlain is the right analogy if we're going to British politics of the 1930s. Chamberlain, after all, seemed to truly believe he had secured “peace in our time,” and, when he notified his country it was at war 74 years ago last week, his speech resonated with hurt that he had been lied to. A fool, yes, but a sincere fool. The person I'd point to is Stanley Baldwin, Neville's predecessor in 10 Downing, and someone who comes off much worse in Churchill's WWII reminiscences. Baldwin was a political animal. He calculated votes. When he saw that militarizing Britain meant losing elections, he stood back, even as he knew Hitler was getting stronger and Hitler wanted war.
Now, we have another debate on "war," a word that, strangely, has shifted definition since Obama was elected and since the GOP took over the House. Would anyone have called the bombing of Qaddafi's compound by Reagan war? An act of war, certainly, but war? Was Grenada war? Was Panama? Was Lebanon? Was any of the various no-fly zones we erected against Iraq? Was the armed incursion into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden war? Is each and every drone attack we launch in Yemen and Somalia war?
Parsing the difference between an act of war, which every one of these actions were and are, and war itself is perhaps an act of sophistry, but my point is that most of those opposing action against Syria, which by all accounts will be limited (too limited for a vocal neo-con minority), wouldn't have called those actions war. They would have seen and called them rightful acts of self-interest or protection of innocents, the very kind of language Obama and Kerry are using.
What's changed? Two things. One, Iraq and Afghanistan, which were/are wars and were approved by Congress, showed many the folly of reckless involvement in foreign climes. Two, Barrack Hussein Obama is in office, and many who oppose him for one or both of his crimes of being black and a democrat will oppose him no matter what he does or proposes. They do not care whether they are intellectually consistent. They will not even recognize that they ARE intellectually inconsistent. Cognitive dissonance is a term that does not apply to them. To the extent, that it does apply, they will use reason number one (Iraq/Afghanistan experience) to mask the real reason for their opposition, reason number two (black democrat in Oval Office).
Other politicians will oppose this action for Stanley Baldwin reasons. They see a change in attitude from the heady days of 2002, when to even hint at unease at US involvement in Iraq meant being subject to accusations of being a traitor. They count votes, and regardless of how they feel about action, they will vote against it.
In my heart of hearts, I should be gladdened that the stricter definition of war has started to take hold. God knows we could use more caution about and respect for the use of force. God knows, we as a nation should recognize that even a no fly zone or humanitarian mission is both fraught with risk and an incursion on someone else's territory. In short, it's war. But I question the reasons most cite for opposition in this particular case.
I find myself in the odd position of respecting old school neo-cons, who, at least, have maintained consistency and lecture Obama on being weak. Guess what, he is weak. Weak politically (facing an intransigent House and paralyzed Senate), and weak in that he caves too easily, always seeking to compromise before establishing (dare I use the phrase) a red line beyond which he will not back up. I also respect and generally align myself with those on the left who oppose action out of principle and who have not veered from that principle. Blessed are the peacemakers.
Sadly, in the debate currently engulfing and inflaming the country, I see little principle, either of the misguided neo-con kind or off the anti-violence kind. Mostly, I see political opportunism. So, where does that leave me? All this mental masturbation about motivations to oppose action in Syria doesn’t really answer the question about action in Syria, and sometimes, people do the right things (or don’t do the wrong things) for the wrong reason.
I find the reasons for opposing action in Syria (those reasons that are divorced from domestic political calculation) less convincing than those for. Yes, we could be drawn into something bigger by action, but we are just as likely, if not more so, to be drawn in by inaction. Letting Assad violate one of the few successfully maintained strictures imposed on war since World War I, using poison gas, is a giant step backward. Inaction strengthens Assad and his allies, Hezbollah and Iran. That we would be supporting groups affiliated with Al Qaeda is not necessarily true. There are people fighting Assad who are democrats in favor of establishing an open and free society in Syria. Failure to support these democrats would, for the time being, strengthen Islamist/terrorist groups vis a vis the freedom-loving groups. Ask yourself whether supporting the Republicans against the Fascists in Spain in the thirties was automatically support of Communists, who were also part of the coalition. I don’t think so. Failure to support the Republicans would have weakened them both against the Fascists and against the Communists, who were receiving outside support. As it happened the Fascist Phalangists won, and Spain slid into dictatorship for decades. Assad’s dictatorship is and would be more brutal.
So, leaving aside arguments about appeasement, I support hurting Assad, hitting targets he doesn’t want to lose and making him reconsider the use of chemical weapons. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. Has Obama bungled the making of his case? Absolutely, partly because he caters to his opponents (in this case John McCain and Lindsey Graham) too assiduously. Is taking action against Syria the right thing to do? I would call it the less wrong thing to do.