Whether we (the American public) want to see an attack on Assad in Syria, we will attack after the gas attack in the eastern suburbs of Damascus on August 21, 2013. Here's why.
1. Any opposition group wanting to cause a false flag would have caused far fewer casualties to itself than this, assuming the numbers of 1300 dead and 3600 treated are reliable. The opposition isn't strong enough to be able to afford to kill off 1300 of their own people, including women and children. They probably don't have access to that much poison or means to deliver it; their leadership, such as it is, is too fractured to either make such a horrific decision to inflict on themselves, they are too close to the victims, and factions in the opposition leadership are unlikely to be able to keep such an operation secret.
2. If the Syrian government has already used chem weapons on a smaller scale, and a UN team was in country to inspect conditions, the regime may have felt there was little left to lose by going whole hog against the large area of opposition in the suburbs of the capital. If they are going to be accused and attacked for small attacks, they might as well use 'em while they still have 'em for maximum effect -- to secure the areas immediately around the capital.
3. 1300 dead in a single night and thousands more injured, plus thousands more tied down by having to care for the wounded, is a substantial attack in a city and country of this size. This was closer to use of a weapon of mass destruction to achieve ethnic cleansing in a single metropolitan area. They were out to break a stalemate, and in absence of any supportive counter attack, it may well work. Tut tutting "that's not fair" will make no difference,, other than to show they (and anyone else in any other country in a similar circumstance) CAN get away with it. Jacking up their capital, military bases, and anti air craft defenses will make the point that this was a bad move.
4. Once the president opens his mouth and says, "this far but no more", he and the government need to back that up. Otherwise, yes, it does make him, and the rest of the government, weak. Whether he should have said it or not makes no difference now -- he did say it, so now we have to back it up. This is basic Imperial Politics 101.
5. As far as imperial politics goes: at a higher, even if disgusting, level, this isn't about the humanitarian aspect of reining in a dictator, but dealing with "their, not our" dictator. Syria is a client state to Iran and Russia; taking out the Assad regime will mean they both lose a pivotal player on their side. Russia will lose a potential naval base on the Mediterranean; Iran will lose a forward base on Israel's frontier. It may put crazy religious reactionaries from the villages in control of a big part of Syrian politics for a while, but for the most part they will get their support from Sunnis (Saudi and Gulf states), which we will probably find easier to deal with at a strategic level.
6. Imperialism continued: France is backing us while Britain isn't: why? Probably because elements within French leadership have already made it plain they want to see the whole Mediterranean Basin turned into a European lake. Our support in the Arab Spring might be seen as a ragged attempt to put that vision into effect. If that's true, don't expect to see the next government in Damascus applying for EU membership soon; this is a generations-long project, if it is successful. But then, so was NATO's waiting for the Berlin Wall to fall.
In a post peak-oil world, access to solar farms or other mineral resources in deserts from Morocco to Kurdistan may be worth more, and be more stable, than access to Persian Gulf oilfields. Keep in mind that the US has been recently moving into traditional French territory in West Africa with the Africa Command; the French may see working with us here as a means to ensure this is a partnership between them and us instead of us replacing them totally.
This is not an action covered in the US Constitution, but almost none of our imperial actions are. This isn't covered in either democratic or republican theory. It is a part of our imperial role that we've taken on, but failed to develop a political theory for that we can articulate without laughing out loud or throwing up.
I'm not stating this in order to defend or excuse the administration, so much as to explain it, perhaps to myself. I think it's also worth noting that two of the people supporting, even urging, the President to act are John McCain and John Kerry. These two aren't just political leaders on both sides of the aisle, but former presidential candidates themselves; in other words, if they had won their bids, they could have been the ones facing the decisions now on Obama's desk. Any one who has run the gauntlet to reach the Oval Office is likely to see foreign policy from a perspective very strange to most domestic politicians. In fact, if either McCain or Kerry were president right now, those missiles would probably have already launched.
Please excuse the lack of editing; since these attacks are likely to start any hour now, I felt it only made sense to put up or shut up now, not after the dust has literally settled. This touches on a number of issues that I want to explore more thoroughly and nail down, but those will have to wait.
For now, this will have to do: while I'm not comfortable with most imperial politics, it is an inevitable part of life on this planet, so we might as well acknowledge it in order to do a better job of it. And as with most politics, perfection will have to wait while we deal with the situation in front of us as it is. Rotten groups will do rotten things unless someone calls them on it; our own rotten actions in the past won't excuse inaction now; and inaction on our part, in the imperial context, doesn't make us moral so much as it confirms the security of Assad's Syria within the Russian and Iranian sphere of influence. If our violence against Assad's actions makes us an imperialistic warmonger, what does that make Russia and Iran, for backing up and excusing Assad's mass murders on "his" soil? Russia obviously doesn't want UN backed action to threaten their client. At the same time, their client is not on solid ground, and Russia has no inherent claim on Syria as a permanent part of their sphere of influence -- this is a clear opportunity to get rid of their client, reduce their influence in the area, and possibly see life in Syria become more, if not free, at least more open, with more options. It's not a sure thing, but the things that are sure as long as the Assads remain in control aren't worth much. Maybe it's time to introduce some uncertainty into the picture, like a liberal community organizer putting a cruise missile into Bashar's office.
1. Any opposition group wanting to cause a false flag would have caused far fewer casualties to itself than this, assuming the numbers of 1300 dead and 3600 treated are reliable. The opposition isn't strong enough to be able to afford to kill off 1300 of their own people, including women and children. They probably don't have access to that much poison or means to deliver it; their leadership, such as it is, is too fractured to either make such a horrific decision to inflict on themselves, they are too close to the victims, and factions in the opposition leadership are unlikely to be able to keep such an operation secret.
2. If the Syrian government has already used chem weapons on a smaller scale, and a UN team was in country to inspect conditions, the regime may have felt there was little left to lose by going whole hog against the large area of opposition in the suburbs of the capital. If they are going to be accused and attacked for small attacks, they might as well use 'em while they still have 'em for maximum effect -- to secure the areas immediately around the capital.
3. 1300 dead in a single night and thousands more injured, plus thousands more tied down by having to care for the wounded, is a substantial attack in a city and country of this size. This was closer to use of a weapon of mass destruction to achieve ethnic cleansing in a single metropolitan area. They were out to break a stalemate, and in absence of any supportive counter attack, it may well work. Tut tutting "that's not fair" will make no difference,, other than to show they (and anyone else in any other country in a similar circumstance) CAN get away with it. Jacking up their capital, military bases, and anti air craft defenses will make the point that this was a bad move.
4. Once the president opens his mouth and says, "this far but no more", he and the government need to back that up. Otherwise, yes, it does make him, and the rest of the government, weak. Whether he should have said it or not makes no difference now -- he did say it, so now we have to back it up. This is basic Imperial Politics 101.
5. As far as imperial politics goes: at a higher, even if disgusting, level, this isn't about the humanitarian aspect of reining in a dictator, but dealing with "their, not our" dictator. Syria is a client state to Iran and Russia; taking out the Assad regime will mean they both lose a pivotal player on their side. Russia will lose a potential naval base on the Mediterranean; Iran will lose a forward base on Israel's frontier. It may put crazy religious reactionaries from the villages in control of a big part of Syrian politics for a while, but for the most part they will get their support from Sunnis (Saudi and Gulf states), which we will probably find easier to deal with at a strategic level.
6. Imperialism continued: France is backing us while Britain isn't: why? Probably because elements within French leadership have already made it plain they want to see the whole Mediterranean Basin turned into a European lake. Our support in the Arab Spring might be seen as a ragged attempt to put that vision into effect. If that's true, don't expect to see the next government in Damascus applying for EU membership soon; this is a generations-long project, if it is successful. But then, so was NATO's waiting for the Berlin Wall to fall.
In a post peak-oil world, access to solar farms or other mineral resources in deserts from Morocco to Kurdistan may be worth more, and be more stable, than access to Persian Gulf oilfields. Keep in mind that the US has been recently moving into traditional French territory in West Africa with the Africa Command; the French may see working with us here as a means to ensure this is a partnership between them and us instead of us replacing them totally.
This is not an action covered in the US Constitution, but almost none of our imperial actions are. This isn't covered in either democratic or republican theory. It is a part of our imperial role that we've taken on, but failed to develop a political theory for that we can articulate without laughing out loud or throwing up.
I'm not stating this in order to defend or excuse the administration, so much as to explain it, perhaps to myself. I think it's also worth noting that two of the people supporting, even urging, the President to act are John McCain and John Kerry. These two aren't just political leaders on both sides of the aisle, but former presidential candidates themselves; in other words, if they had won their bids, they could have been the ones facing the decisions now on Obama's desk. Any one who has run the gauntlet to reach the Oval Office is likely to see foreign policy from a perspective very strange to most domestic politicians. In fact, if either McCain or Kerry were president right now, those missiles would probably have already launched.
Please excuse the lack of editing; since these attacks are likely to start any hour now, I felt it only made sense to put up or shut up now, not after the dust has literally settled. This touches on a number of issues that I want to explore more thoroughly and nail down, but those will have to wait.
For now, this will have to do: while I'm not comfortable with most imperial politics, it is an inevitable part of life on this planet, so we might as well acknowledge it in order to do a better job of it. And as with most politics, perfection will have to wait while we deal with the situation in front of us as it is. Rotten groups will do rotten things unless someone calls them on it; our own rotten actions in the past won't excuse inaction now; and inaction on our part, in the imperial context, doesn't make us moral so much as it confirms the security of Assad's Syria within the Russian and Iranian sphere of influence. If our violence against Assad's actions makes us an imperialistic warmonger, what does that make Russia and Iran, for backing up and excusing Assad's mass murders on "his" soil? Russia obviously doesn't want UN backed action to threaten their client. At the same time, their client is not on solid ground, and Russia has no inherent claim on Syria as a permanent part of their sphere of influence -- this is a clear opportunity to get rid of their client, reduce their influence in the area, and possibly see life in Syria become more, if not free, at least more open, with more options. It's not a sure thing, but the things that are sure as long as the Assads remain in control aren't worth much. Maybe it's time to introduce some uncertainty into the picture, like a liberal community organizer putting a cruise missile into Bashar's office.
No comments:
Post a Comment