Letter 2 America for September 10, 2013

Dear America,

The big day is here as to the facts surrounding the Syrian use of nerve gas against civilians in that country in that President Obama is speaking to us tonight, presumably to lay out the case against Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian army relative that atrocity.  Since Mr. Obama referred the matter to congress for the purpose of obtaining from it authorization to act militarily against Assad, there has been the usual posturing, political cat-calling and grandstanding, but amidst all the palaver there was a kernel of sincerity in the form of the questions that should have been asked over and over again since the Vietnam War, mainly, why are we doing this, and how is it going to work, but answers have not been forthcoming.  While the specifics of The President's plan are certainly, and justifiably, top secret, there must at least be some intelligence or information that he could reveal and on which he relies for the conclusion that, not only did the Syrian army do it, but Assad was involved personally.  My hope is that we will hear all about that tonight, and that when the speech is over, we will all know enough facts to certify the villainy of Assad's regime and merit its chastening by fire, so to speak.  But the reality is that if the information we get tonight is sufficient to convince us and persuade a skeptical congress to vote out a resolution giving The President what he is asking for--that is the authority to order cruise missile strikes and any other feasible martial coercion necessary to deter a repeat of the mass killing we have already seen--that might be the least desirable outcome for Mr. Obama, and perhaps even the world at large.  That is because if military action is authorized, it then makes such action politically necessary, and the fact is that without a strategy entailing regime change in Syria and trial for Assad before the World Court, the whole thing will be an exercise in spitting into the wind.  President Obama will seem like a diffident, even callow president who could do no more with the unleashed military might of the United States than cause a tyrant a little inconvenience, and that isn't what anyone involved in the decision-making has in mind.  In fact, this one ill-conceived course of action on President Obama's part, starting with his "red line" and ending with a few cruise missiles hitting some military bases in Syria, will illuminate his entire presidency with an unflattering light, and what little he has really accomplished--albeit under the worst of political circumstances--will not be enough to offset the pejorative narrative of his critics that will ensue, and will likely resonate for the balance of his second term.  Frankly, it's been a botched job from the beginning, but there is a way out.

If an ever-obdurate Republican House of Representatives stays true to form and denies The President the power to act, he can seize the moral high ground not only with his political adversaries, but with the entire world.  With a "nay" vote behind him, he can tell the world that he tried but that the lack of moral resolve on every continent prevented him from doing for the world what the world would not do for itself, but should have.  There is no debate about the heinousness of what Assad did, so the lack of international will to act on it is indubitably shameful.  As for the Republicans, they are in a bind whatever they do.  If they authorize the bombing, they are in line for any criticism that eventuates on account of the consequences...or lack thereof...of the campaign.  If they vote against it, they are in line for the same criticism as applies to Great Britain and the rest of the world, apparently including even the Arab League.  This is the world's problem, not just ours, America.  And someone should call the world out on it.  Since President Obama is the only one in it who has even tried to do anything, he will be the only one on high enough moral ground to castigation anyone else.  The Bush Doctrine, which was really just an extension of the Jingoism and Chauvinism inspired by Ronald Reagan, relied on the premise that as a nation, we are superior to all others and thus empowered to act both preemptively when we feel threatened and peremptorily when we think we might be, otherwise known as "American Exceptionalism."  The President stepped back from that Reagan/Bush proposition and in the case of Libya, he consigned our nation to lead the world, but not to be its sole proxy when Qaddafi--a tyrant like Assad--began mutilating those in his country who opposed him.  This Syrian situation is really a referendum on the difference.  A vote for the bombing will be an endorsement of the Bush Doctrine and a repudiation of what might be called the "Obama Doctrine"...that is, minding our own business unless by consensus we are invited to take action in concert with an array of other nations.  That doesn't mean silence when criticism is merited, nor does it mean perpetual conciliation.  In fact, whether under the Bush or the Obama doctrine, Russia should be publicly and loudly castigated for abetting Assad's regime in their heinous conduct and then obstructing the world when it took notice and might have acted in concert.  But the way to do that is not for us to rush into Syria; it is to rush into the U.N. Security Council and demand a vote on a resolution allowing the U.N. to create a peacekeeping force and send it to Syria to arrest Assad and separate the two sides until a Bosnia style resolution can be fashioned by and for the Syrian people.  Then, if Russia casts its veto, Vladimir Putin will be the world's goat, not our president, and the United States will be insulated from any claim that we have abdicated some ethereal responsibility with which the world endowed us whether we asked for it or not.

The way I see it, this is not about Assad anymore.  He is what he is, and I believe by consensus, the phrase "war cirminal" is nowhere near harsh enough to describe him.  The open question for the world is whether Vlad the Putin or Barrack Obama is the world's paradigm for international political leadership.  And when that question is resolved, the United States will have to decide what role it wants to play in the world rather than letting the world dictate all the terms.

Your friend,

Mike