Barack Obama and John Kerry seem to be determined to bomb Syria, egged on by those of such proven irresponsibility and irrationality as John McCain and Lindsay Graham. If this crackpot idea is to go ahead, it's important for as many Democrats as possible to say no to them, When it comes to irresponsible and clearly futile bombing and military action, party loyalty comes in no where near first in consideration. If David Cameron can't bring the Parliament along, it's a good sign that Democrats should consider what that means.
So far I've heard nothing from Barack Obama or John Kerry that explains which side of the multi-side Syrian civil war is supposed to benefit from this and how they are supposed to benefit from it. That it took so long to figure out that one of them wasn't responsible for using chemical weapons should make people realize that those who are likely to benefit from U.S. action could be at least as bad as the Assad government. It's reported that even his side has factions which are likely worse and better placed than others to assume control.
The frustration of men up in the heroic fights against fascism in the 1940s and the one against slavery in the 1860s, that there is no side to support that is a clearly better alternative than the status quo can't be allowed to govern us. TV, movies, novels are structured according to human imagination, which selects from the wider universe of historical and human experience to make up a story. It isn't reality. To an extent neither is written history, though taking into account a wider range of what historians write can provide us with those parts we like and find inspiring and with those which we find disquieting can inform us of reality in a way that fiction can't sustain. Syria in 2013 has no side that can win and unite the country with a reliable chance at having a better government than the awful one in place now.
Syria, to me, seems to be a lot like Afghanistan during the nominal communist rule during the 1980s. If Obama starts bombing and training it won't be enough for McCain and Graham who will constantly press for more and more. Bombing the hell out of a few places for a few days won't do anything to end things, it will almost certainly make things worse and the tendency in that situation is to ramp up the bets and go for broke like a drunk gambler.
It's long been clear that Barack Obama is an extremely unskilled politician whose practice, since law school, has been to profit from volunteering to be coopted by his adversaries. Having watched him do that during the entire course of his presidency, it's time for the rest of the Democratic party to realize it is well into the post-Obama period, that is in the period after anyone has a rational expectation that he will be a strong Democratic president. He simply will not be one. He would have been one already if that was ever going to happen. It's time for Democrats to face that and think ahead to next year. Obama's track record of supporting Democrats in elections he isn't running in is pretty abysmal. Democrats are on their own next year and they don't need to get sucked into the burden of an unpopular war in Syria enabling our opponents, who are the people Obama has allied himself with. Democrats should approach Obama in the same way, any cooperation with him has to be on the same basis, admitting that he has always had a greater affinity for our opponents than us. If they vote to support Obama's and Kerry's bombing in Syria, they are voting to enable John McCain and Lindsay Graham.
Sadly, I don't think the American people much care who is who in Syria (nor could they find it on a map; then again, how many of us can locate Iraq or Afghanistan without at least a hint?). They are simply war weary.
ReplyDeleteIt's a weak thread, considering how little justification there is for a strike against Assad. Even if he had one clear noble enemy, what would a strike by the US do? Rap his knuckles? Punch his nose? I heard one commentator say the attack needs to shake the dust on Assad's library books, scare his family, make him decide he'd never use chemical weapons again.
And people like that aren't prevailing only because the American public is tired of war.
That we could scare Assad is ludicrous. The man is in a fight for his life. He controls maybe 1/3rd of his country. What are we gonna do to him with some missiles? Anything, besides confirm his supporters in his strength ("The US did their worst, and I'm still here!"). This is insanity squared. This is a POTUS with a standing military who can't refuse the opportunity to do mischief. I'm not sure any POTUS could. Outside the office, rational minds decry the use of US force for every reason. Inside the office, its a temptation that cannot be refused.
Even if we refuse it just because we're tired, we should refuse it. And I really don't see Obama bucking Congress and the American public on this. W? Probably. Obama? Nah gonna happen.
And voting for McCain is ironic, as McCain, fresh from getting his head handed to him at two town hall meetings (they don't want to go to war), had declared Obama must be impeached if he puts boots on the ground in Syria.
ReplyDeleteWhich, of course, the only "game changer" possible in that war, and precisely what McCain has been demanding. Well, until he talked to the people who elected him.
I honestly believe this is a set of symbolic gestures, now. The opposition to this (the war weariness) is so great it is dead. D.C. pundits are now talking about politicians "brave" enough to ignore their constituents. That's not bravery, that's tyranny.
We're done here (with this situation, I mean).
I hope you're right that Obama won't go it alone. I'm petty disgusted with Kerry. I wish I'd been blogging when I was railing against his choice as the Democratic nominee, railing against the early primary states, we need to widen the early influences.
ReplyDeleteKerry is the classic example of "War is bad until I get my hands on the war machine, and then: WHEEEEE!!!!!" Yeah, I'm disgusted with him, too.
ReplyDeleteThe other argument is that D.C. loves war and will eventually knuckle under and vote for it. But I keep hearing how the country is flooding Congress with "NO! HELL NO!", and as I say, even McCain has now decided his previous position, which implicitly required boots on the ground, would now be an impeachable offense. He clearly felt he had to throw the Tea Party that bone just to fade the heat. And hell, he could retire tomorrow, he doesn't need that Senate job anymore. He's the perfect example of a politician who could be "brave".
This thing doesn't have enough support to go forward, and Obama isn't going to buck the country and the Congress just to prove he swings the biggest pipe in the world.
IMHO, of course. And of course, I could be wrong.
Yes, you are wrong
ReplyDelete