Over the course of the last three days the UN has done two important
things, one of which is far more significant than the other, but both of
which bear merit and deserve to be lauded.
Let's start with the Security Council resolution
that requires Syria to turn over and destroy all of its chemical
weapons and materials for producing those weapons within a year. I've
previously lambasted the Russian proposal - it's still a disingenuous
cop out - but I must say that I'm cautiously optimistic about the
Security Council Resolution though it is terribly lax.
The
bad news is that the Security Council Resolution is toothless. If Syria
fails to comply, the Security Council can consider talking about taking
action...it's that tough. However, early indications are that Syria
will comply, and at least the Security Council agreed to something
legally binding. Small steps, but steps. Although as The Economist and I
have both pointed out, even the prompt and full removal of all chemical
weapons does nothing to stop bloodshed that has been driven by conventional weapons.
Despite
my reservations, I do support the resolution, and I hope it will be
implemented swiftly and successfully. Perhaps it will open the door to
other communication that will help end the fighting.
But
onto what may be the more important of the two events: a UN Climate
Panel formally set an upper limit at which the world needs to stop
emitting carbon gases or really, irreversibly screw things up. This is
pretty substantial even if it's somewhat inexact and the science is
evolving. The people who do this for a living are telling us that we
need to somehow get cleaner and quickly. According to the report, 2040 is the year we will probably hit the limit at the rate we're going. That's not so distant.
I've
long advocated for clean and renewable energy in this blog, and I think
it is a true travesty that we haven't started addressing this problem
at a natural level sooner. It's not only necessary for our survival, but
would be an enormous economic boon upon which someone else will
capitalize if we do not.
I am encouraged by the UN's
work, but I do hope to see further action on both of these issues in the
immediate future. The crisis in Syria must come to an end soon before
more blood is shed and the region becomes even more dangerous and
unstable. Furthermore, immediate action on climate change is long
overdue. I hope that Congress will use the recent UN report to finally
make encouraging clean and alternative energy a serious priority.
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Wasted Opportunity
While the world has spent three years watching a slaughter in Syria and doing nothing, the terrorist groups who seek to do innocents worldwide (most recently in Kenya) harm have gotten stronger. Just today the NYTimes reported that key rebel groups formerly aligned with the political opposition to Assad have disavowed that opposition government in favor of the Islamist movement building among the Syrian rebels.
While the article does not mention the failure of Western powers to intervene to stop the bloodshed, it is undeniable that the group we support is wavering while the Islamist rebels, those with ties to al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, those who want Sharia law, are growing stronger. Not only have we failed to prevent a massacre, but we have wasted a chance to help forge a stronger, more democratic, more stable Syria. Instead we find ourselves looking through a closing window of opportunity at a soon-to-be failed state in which violence and instability are the norm. We may very well laud ourselves for not being drawn into the conflict in Syria, but I maintain that is silly. We were drawn in the moment the fighting started, we have simply failed to accept responsibility, and as a result we are both guilty of being passive bystanders to slaughter and also for undermining our own strategic interests.
This should have been - and was - obvious to some from the outset, but the recent defection of key rebel forces to the Islamist branch from the government in exile only increases the likelihood that whenever Assad falls - and fall he will, there is no way he can ever rule a united Syria again - an Islamic pseudo-state will replace his regime. So instead of intervening to stop a massacre when there was a chance of establishing a legitimate government - I don't pretend this would have been easy - we sat on our hands while innocents were and continue to be slaughtered, and now the tide has turned in favor of the group of rebels we would prefer not to see win.
Doing the right thing is rarely easy. In Syria, the decision to do the right thing, the hard thing, was never made, and so we've never had the chance to take difficult action. Instead we did what was "easy" - which in this scenario also means morally indefensible - and as a result we are now looking at a situation that seems likely to end up far worse than how it started, and potentially far worse than if we had taken action.
This wasted opportunity will probably haunt us. The violence and instability in Syria is detrimental to world peace and security, and particularly to our safety here in the United States. Our short-sighted indifference to the plight of others has already started paying the wrong kinds of dividends.
While the article does not mention the failure of Western powers to intervene to stop the bloodshed, it is undeniable that the group we support is wavering while the Islamist rebels, those with ties to al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, those who want Sharia law, are growing stronger. Not only have we failed to prevent a massacre, but we have wasted a chance to help forge a stronger, more democratic, more stable Syria. Instead we find ourselves looking through a closing window of opportunity at a soon-to-be failed state in which violence and instability are the norm. We may very well laud ourselves for not being drawn into the conflict in Syria, but I maintain that is silly. We were drawn in the moment the fighting started, we have simply failed to accept responsibility, and as a result we are both guilty of being passive bystanders to slaughter and also for undermining our own strategic interests.
This should have been - and was - obvious to some from the outset, but the recent defection of key rebel forces to the Islamist branch from the government in exile only increases the likelihood that whenever Assad falls - and fall he will, there is no way he can ever rule a united Syria again - an Islamic pseudo-state will replace his regime. So instead of intervening to stop a massacre when there was a chance of establishing a legitimate government - I don't pretend this would have been easy - we sat on our hands while innocents were and continue to be slaughtered, and now the tide has turned in favor of the group of rebels we would prefer not to see win.
Doing the right thing is rarely easy. In Syria, the decision to do the right thing, the hard thing, was never made, and so we've never had the chance to take difficult action. Instead we did what was "easy" - which in this scenario also means morally indefensible - and as a result we are now looking at a situation that seems likely to end up far worse than how it started, and potentially far worse than if we had taken action.
This wasted opportunity will probably haunt us. The violence and instability in Syria is detrimental to world peace and security, and particularly to our safety here in the United States. Our short-sighted indifference to the plight of others has already started paying the wrong kinds of dividends.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
The Surprise that Wasn't
Well here's something that shouldn't shock anyone. The UN's report on the use of chemical weapons in Syria, released yesterday, provides even more evidence that responsibility for the attack comes directly from elite military units positioned around the government's strong point in Damascus. Even though the report was commissioned only to determine if chemical weapons were used, not who used them, the evidence was just so in-your-face that the inspectors couldn't help but identify from where the missiles were launched.
Also unsurprisingly, Russia, the broker of this new "deal" to rid Syria of chemical weapons, strongly condemned the report. Wasn't it just last week that Vladimir Putin was writing an op-ed in the NYTimes compelling America to work through the UN to resolve this crisis? Now that the UN has issued a report he has denounced it. Not that Putin's op-ed carried any weight before this report, but if you were someone who thought he had a shred of credibility before (do not count me among those people), then his reaction to the report should deprive you of the notion that Putin is an honest broker in the attempt for peace in Syria.
Of course, I have been advocating for action since May, so the release of the UN's report is somewhat meaningless to me. It was evident long before the report was even commissioned, let alone released that chemical weapons had been used, and it was also obvious long before the report was able to pinpoint from where they were launched that the attack was carried out by the Syrian military. Still, Russia maintains the rebels are responsible, while simultaneously proposing a plan to strip the Syrian military of its chemical weapons and supplying them with traditional arms. If this doesn't make any sense to you, that's because it doesn't make any sense. This whole charade has gone on too long, and frankly I am both embarrassed and infuriated that the United States has ceded the moral high ground and our leadership role to a thug like Vladimir Putin whose actions are only going to cause more death and suffering in Syria in the short-term and more long-term instability and violence.
The time at which action became acceptable has long since passed. While the UN Security Council frivolously debates the measure to force Syria to turn over its poison gas more people are dying, more unnecessary suffering is happening, and the foundation for future violence - already having been laid - is being strengthened.
Neither the "revelations" of the UN report nor Russia's harsh condemnation of it should surprise anyone. What should surprise us is the fact that, even in light of overwhelming evidence that the Syrian government has gassed its own people (not to mention blowing them to bits), and the fact that we have been knowingly (and dare I say, willingly) duped by Russia, we still lack the political and moral willpower to do what is both ethically demanded of us and what is in our own strategic interests.
The surprise that wasn't was exactly that, a mundane confirmation of what anyone who is monitoring this situation already knew: the government of Syria is committing mass murder of its own citizens. My only question now is how long will we watch the slaughter continue before we take action?
Also unsurprisingly, Russia, the broker of this new "deal" to rid Syria of chemical weapons, strongly condemned the report. Wasn't it just last week that Vladimir Putin was writing an op-ed in the NYTimes compelling America to work through the UN to resolve this crisis? Now that the UN has issued a report he has denounced it. Not that Putin's op-ed carried any weight before this report, but if you were someone who thought he had a shred of credibility before (do not count me among those people), then his reaction to the report should deprive you of the notion that Putin is an honest broker in the attempt for peace in Syria.
Of course, I have been advocating for action since May, so the release of the UN's report is somewhat meaningless to me. It was evident long before the report was even commissioned, let alone released that chemical weapons had been used, and it was also obvious long before the report was able to pinpoint from where they were launched that the attack was carried out by the Syrian military. Still, Russia maintains the rebels are responsible, while simultaneously proposing a plan to strip the Syrian military of its chemical weapons and supplying them with traditional arms. If this doesn't make any sense to you, that's because it doesn't make any sense. This whole charade has gone on too long, and frankly I am both embarrassed and infuriated that the United States has ceded the moral high ground and our leadership role to a thug like Vladimir Putin whose actions are only going to cause more death and suffering in Syria in the short-term and more long-term instability and violence.
The time at which action became acceptable has long since passed. While the UN Security Council frivolously debates the measure to force Syria to turn over its poison gas more people are dying, more unnecessary suffering is happening, and the foundation for future violence - already having been laid - is being strengthened.
Neither the "revelations" of the UN report nor Russia's harsh condemnation of it should surprise anyone. What should surprise us is the fact that, even in light of overwhelming evidence that the Syrian government has gassed its own people (not to mention blowing them to bits), and the fact that we have been knowingly (and dare I say, willingly) duped by Russia, we still lack the political and moral willpower to do what is both ethically demanded of us and what is in our own strategic interests.
The surprise that wasn't was exactly that, a mundane confirmation of what anyone who is monitoring this situation already knew: the government of Syria is committing mass murder of its own citizens. My only question now is how long will we watch the slaughter continue before we take action?
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Duped
The crisis du jour in Syria has abated though the actual problem is still as severe, if not more so, than it was months and years ago.
The "deal" struck between the US and Russia to wrest from the Syrian government its chemical weapons was an easy political non-solution to a human rights problem. It does nothing to end the slaughter, almost all of which has been caused by conventional weapons, weapons funneled to the Syrian government by its Russian backers.
I'd like to pose the question: what have we achieved? Assuming the Syrian government complies with this plan - and I assume they will given that Russia is their lifeline - so what? What have we done? The destruction of chemical weapons is certainly laudable, but only because those weapons take human life. So if we therefore see the protection of human life as the end goal when discussing the destruction of chemical weapons, I again pose the question: what have we achieved? A not-so-in-depth analysis highlights the answer: nothing substantial. If the goal of depriving Assad of his sarin gas is to save human lives, then we have in effect done almost nothing to reach that goal. Assad has shown he is perfectly willing and perfectly capable of killing his own citizens with bombs and bullets. In fact, it seems he has an affinity for this manner of meting out death given that less than 1% of the dead were killed by gas. So by removing chemical weapons from the equation our progress rate is essentially 1%. Fantastic job.
Of course, the real question this raises is: what is our goal in Syria? I know what mine would be, but what is ours, what is America's goal? It doesn't appear as though we have one, which is why we so easily acquiesced to a deal that does nothing to serve our national interests. In fact, the headline of today's New York Times article is telling. Yes, we were in fact, outfoxed and out-maneuvered. We wasted an opportunity to take a global stand for human rights and instead bowed to incoherent logic and irrational reasoning about how Syria's woes are akin to Iraq. While we watch more and more innocent people are killed, our long-term strategic interests are put at risk, and a nefarious Russian autocrat comes off looking like someone who has helped avert a crisis when in fact it is our failure to act and save lives that is more likely to lead to future violence. Put simply, we were duped.
While Assad stalls and regroups, he will be resupplied from Russia. His rule will ultimately end even if he wins this conflict, but the atrocities committed by both sides and the total abdication of leadership from the world community will breed future generations of violent jihadis who will be threats to world peace and stability. Not only are we making the active decision NOT to save lives now, we are almost guaranteeing more violence in the future. We let ourselves succumb to flawed logic, poor reasoning, and a misplaced sense of morality.
It is a sad day when America refuses to stand on the side of human rights. It is an even sadder day when America refuses to stand with human rights because we were tricked by a Russian neo-czar who intimidates his own political opponents, jails them, and rules with an iron fist. This is the man to whom we have ceded the moral and political situation in Syria. Tragicomic.
The "deal" struck between the US and Russia to wrest from the Syrian government its chemical weapons was an easy political non-solution to a human rights problem. It does nothing to end the slaughter, almost all of which has been caused by conventional weapons, weapons funneled to the Syrian government by its Russian backers.
I'd like to pose the question: what have we achieved? Assuming the Syrian government complies with this plan - and I assume they will given that Russia is their lifeline - so what? What have we done? The destruction of chemical weapons is certainly laudable, but only because those weapons take human life. So if we therefore see the protection of human life as the end goal when discussing the destruction of chemical weapons, I again pose the question: what have we achieved? A not-so-in-depth analysis highlights the answer: nothing substantial. If the goal of depriving Assad of his sarin gas is to save human lives, then we have in effect done almost nothing to reach that goal. Assad has shown he is perfectly willing and perfectly capable of killing his own citizens with bombs and bullets. In fact, it seems he has an affinity for this manner of meting out death given that less than 1% of the dead were killed by gas. So by removing chemical weapons from the equation our progress rate is essentially 1%. Fantastic job.
Of course, the real question this raises is: what is our goal in Syria? I know what mine would be, but what is ours, what is America's goal? It doesn't appear as though we have one, which is why we so easily acquiesced to a deal that does nothing to serve our national interests. In fact, the headline of today's New York Times article is telling. Yes, we were in fact, outfoxed and out-maneuvered. We wasted an opportunity to take a global stand for human rights and instead bowed to incoherent logic and irrational reasoning about how Syria's woes are akin to Iraq. While we watch more and more innocent people are killed, our long-term strategic interests are put at risk, and a nefarious Russian autocrat comes off looking like someone who has helped avert a crisis when in fact it is our failure to act and save lives that is more likely to lead to future violence. Put simply, we were duped.
While Assad stalls and regroups, he will be resupplied from Russia. His rule will ultimately end even if he wins this conflict, but the atrocities committed by both sides and the total abdication of leadership from the world community will breed future generations of violent jihadis who will be threats to world peace and stability. Not only are we making the active decision NOT to save lives now, we are almost guaranteeing more violence in the future. We let ourselves succumb to flawed logic, poor reasoning, and a misplaced sense of morality.
It is a sad day when America refuses to stand on the side of human rights. It is an even sadder day when America refuses to stand with human rights because we were tricked by a Russian neo-czar who intimidates his own political opponents, jails them, and rules with an iron fist. This is the man to whom we have ceded the moral and political situation in Syria. Tragicomic.
Friday, September 13, 2013
A Disingenuous Farce
I should have published this post yesterday, but I wanted to allow myself time to reflect on Vladimir Putin's op-ed in the New York Times. In the last day, my thoughts have solidified. Put frankly, Putin's piece is a disingenuous farce with a veneer of credibility so fragile and thin it's hard to imagine that Putin could even take himself seriously when writing it. Let's break it down.
For starters, the piece is well written and eloquent. Putin is a jerk, but he's not dumb. I actually think it's fantastic that Putin would bother submitting a piece to the NYTimes and that the Times would publish it, but that's all the good I can find in this. Now, to the bad and the ugly.
1) Does anyone believe Putin has even a shred of credibility when he says "the law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not"? Easy for him to say since he makes the laws in his country. In ours, no one is above the law, but Putin routinely jails and intimidates political opponents, rigs elections, brings false charges against enemies in courts he controls, and cracks down on peaceful protests against his authoritarian regime. Putin talking about rule of law is like Mitt Romney talking about integrity or like Kim Kardashian talking about neuroscience, it's just silly.
2) Assume for a moment that Putin is serious about a diplomatic solution...alright that was a fun game...why has he repeatedly blocked action in the UN that would try to resolve the situation? Russia is an internal dumpster fire, but still an international heavy weight with plenty of clout. If Putin wanted a solution to this issue he could have worked with the international community, including the US, prior to this. Consider the hypocrisy of Putin's stance: The US should work with the international community within the confines of international law even though I have previously blocked attempts to do this. Who buys this argument?
3) Putin lays out the outrageous charge that the rebels used chemical weapons - and I'm sure there are elements within the rebel umbrella who WOULD if they COULD - but we know this isn't true. Unlike in Iraq, the intelligence here is pretty clear. The rebels lack both the weapons themselves and the means to launch them. This attack could only have come from the Syrian Army and Putin knows it just like everyone else knows it. But even if Putin believed the rebels launched poison gas - and he doesn't - why would his proposed solution to this atrocity be to strip Assad of his weapons? That doesn't make sense does it? Punish the perpetrators, which Putin claims are the rebels. He can't even construct a coherent response to what he claims is the problem.
4) Finally, and I just saw this today, Putin's proposal has now apparently empowered Assad to start making demands of the US. Three years ago this guy responded to peaceful protests with violent force, sparking a civil war in which over 100,000 people have been killed. Now he thinks he can start making demands of us in exchange for weapons which are banned under international law, and which he has used more than once to kill his own people? No thanks. In Tuesday's post, I called the Russian offer an appealing cop out, and Assad's response confirms that I was right. This move isn't designed to stop the atrocities happening in Syria - not to sound like a broken record, but again, chemical weapons are responsible for roughly 1% of the total casualties in Syria - it's designed to appease the world community into a sense of complacency that we've taken some kind of morally justifiable action to stop the killing when in fact - especially if we stop arming the rebels as Assad demands - this will just lead to him continuing the slaughter with guns and bombs rather than with poison gas.
Putin's disingenuous eloquence is a dangerous stall tactic designed to support a brutal regime. It is appealing to strip Syria of its chemical weapons, but it does nothing to end the bloodshed or bring stability and peace. If anything, Russia will use the time spent figuring out the politics and logistics of all this to give Assad even more conventional weapons and the slaughter will continue while the world watches a massacre on television everyday. As I have said repeatedly, something should have been done long ago. To have no qualms with the deaths of 99,000 people killed with bombs and then find some sort of self-righteous morality when 1,400 are killed with gas reflects some cognitive dissonance on our part.
What America and the global community do to stop the killing of innocents - some of which certainly is being perpetrated by the rebels - will send an important message to the world about what is or is not acceptable in the future. Intervening to stop the violence is not only a moral mandate, it is, as I have claimed, in our long-term national strategic interests.
I'm glad Vladimir Putin took the time to address the American people with his op-ed, but his words only reaffirm his actions over the last three years, and those actions have shown that he cares not for peace, freedom, and stability. If we really question that, we need only ask ourselves: would Putin have ever allowed a Russian newspaper to publish and op-ed by President Obama (remember this is the guy who just made being gay illegal in Russia)? Yeah, I don't think so either. So much for the protector of international law and his well-worded farce.
For starters, the piece is well written and eloquent. Putin is a jerk, but he's not dumb. I actually think it's fantastic that Putin would bother submitting a piece to the NYTimes and that the Times would publish it, but that's all the good I can find in this. Now, to the bad and the ugly.
1) Does anyone believe Putin has even a shred of credibility when he says "the law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not"? Easy for him to say since he makes the laws in his country. In ours, no one is above the law, but Putin routinely jails and intimidates political opponents, rigs elections, brings false charges against enemies in courts he controls, and cracks down on peaceful protests against his authoritarian regime. Putin talking about rule of law is like Mitt Romney talking about integrity or like Kim Kardashian talking about neuroscience, it's just silly.
2) Assume for a moment that Putin is serious about a diplomatic solution...alright that was a fun game...why has he repeatedly blocked action in the UN that would try to resolve the situation? Russia is an internal dumpster fire, but still an international heavy weight with plenty of clout. If Putin wanted a solution to this issue he could have worked with the international community, including the US, prior to this. Consider the hypocrisy of Putin's stance: The US should work with the international community within the confines of international law even though I have previously blocked attempts to do this. Who buys this argument?
3) Putin lays out the outrageous charge that the rebels used chemical weapons - and I'm sure there are elements within the rebel umbrella who WOULD if they COULD - but we know this isn't true. Unlike in Iraq, the intelligence here is pretty clear. The rebels lack both the weapons themselves and the means to launch them. This attack could only have come from the Syrian Army and Putin knows it just like everyone else knows it. But even if Putin believed the rebels launched poison gas - and he doesn't - why would his proposed solution to this atrocity be to strip Assad of his weapons? That doesn't make sense does it? Punish the perpetrators, which Putin claims are the rebels. He can't even construct a coherent response to what he claims is the problem.
4) Finally, and I just saw this today, Putin's proposal has now apparently empowered Assad to start making demands of the US. Three years ago this guy responded to peaceful protests with violent force, sparking a civil war in which over 100,000 people have been killed. Now he thinks he can start making demands of us in exchange for weapons which are banned under international law, and which he has used more than once to kill his own people? No thanks. In Tuesday's post, I called the Russian offer an appealing cop out, and Assad's response confirms that I was right. This move isn't designed to stop the atrocities happening in Syria - not to sound like a broken record, but again, chemical weapons are responsible for roughly 1% of the total casualties in Syria - it's designed to appease the world community into a sense of complacency that we've taken some kind of morally justifiable action to stop the killing when in fact - especially if we stop arming the rebels as Assad demands - this will just lead to him continuing the slaughter with guns and bombs rather than with poison gas.
Putin's disingenuous eloquence is a dangerous stall tactic designed to support a brutal regime. It is appealing to strip Syria of its chemical weapons, but it does nothing to end the bloodshed or bring stability and peace. If anything, Russia will use the time spent figuring out the politics and logistics of all this to give Assad even more conventional weapons and the slaughter will continue while the world watches a massacre on television everyday. As I have said repeatedly, something should have been done long ago. To have no qualms with the deaths of 99,000 people killed with bombs and then find some sort of self-righteous morality when 1,400 are killed with gas reflects some cognitive dissonance on our part.
What America and the global community do to stop the killing of innocents - some of which certainly is being perpetrated by the rebels - will send an important message to the world about what is or is not acceptable in the future. Intervening to stop the violence is not only a moral mandate, it is, as I have claimed, in our long-term national strategic interests.
I'm glad Vladimir Putin took the time to address the American people with his op-ed, but his words only reaffirm his actions over the last three years, and those actions have shown that he cares not for peace, freedom, and stability. If we really question that, we need only ask ourselves: would Putin have ever allowed a Russian newspaper to publish and op-ed by President Obama (remember this is the guy who just made being gay illegal in Russia)? Yeah, I don't think so either. So much for the protector of international law and his well-worded farce.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
How is the Question
As my previous posts have very clearly indicated, I am very much in favor of some kind of intervention in Syria. I believe the United States has a moral responsibility and a strategic long-term interest in prioritizing and protecting human rights. To me the question of whether or not we should intervene has a simple answer: yes.
Of course, that raises many larger and more complicated questions, namely, how? I'll start by saying I'm not in support of some symbolic gesture. What's the point in that? Launching a few cruise missiles really does nothing except waste a few cruise missiles. Those things cost something like $400,000 a pop so I'd prefer not to simply lob a few of them into Syria just to prove we can. Similarly I think the new plan being proposed by Russia and seemingly drawing the support of our politicians is a cop out. While I recognize it represents an easy political situation to a sticky problem, easy solutions aren't generally good ones, and the idea of collecting Assad's chemical weapons and destroying them - while appealing - fails to address the fact that those chemical weapons have killed less than 1% of the total casualties in the three year conflict. In other words, like firing a few missiles, it is much more of a symbolic than a practical measure that does little to help end the bloodshed.
So then what can we do and how can do it? As someone who is advocating action, I feel as though I bear some responsibility for thinking about what that action looks like and proposing some ideas of my own, so with that in mind here we go.
1) A blockade of Syria's ports with the intention of stopping the import (or export) of any arms or materials of military necessities. Stopping Assad and the Islamic fundamentalists among the rebels from committing atrocities means denying them weapons.
2) Tactical strikes within Syria, perhaps carried out in partnership with Israel or other allies, to disrupt convoys of arms to either Assad or the Nursa Front. Carried out effectively in conjunction with step one, this could go a long way towards stopping the violence.
3) Establishment of no fly zones over heavily populated areas to protect civilians. While not all casualties are killed by attacks from the air, strikes from above pose a risk against we can protect relatively easily.
4) Arming of the Free Syrian Army. The ideal outcome for America is for the Free Syrian Army to overcome both the Assad government and the Nursa Front. In order to do this they will need support and perhaps even training. We've reached a point in this conflict when America can and should supply both.
I'm sure there are plenty of other options I am not considering, but again, I maintain that action must be taken to stop the slaughter. That means holding both Assad and the Nursa Front (and the Free Syrian Army when they do wrong) accountable. It is in our national interest to support human rights, and while I do not want America involved in any kind of war, I cannot in good conscious advocate no action while innocent lives are taken for no reason.
Of course, that raises many larger and more complicated questions, namely, how? I'll start by saying I'm not in support of some symbolic gesture. What's the point in that? Launching a few cruise missiles really does nothing except waste a few cruise missiles. Those things cost something like $400,000 a pop so I'd prefer not to simply lob a few of them into Syria just to prove we can. Similarly I think the new plan being proposed by Russia and seemingly drawing the support of our politicians is a cop out. While I recognize it represents an easy political situation to a sticky problem, easy solutions aren't generally good ones, and the idea of collecting Assad's chemical weapons and destroying them - while appealing - fails to address the fact that those chemical weapons have killed less than 1% of the total casualties in the three year conflict. In other words, like firing a few missiles, it is much more of a symbolic than a practical measure that does little to help end the bloodshed.
So then what can we do and how can do it? As someone who is advocating action, I feel as though I bear some responsibility for thinking about what that action looks like and proposing some ideas of my own, so with that in mind here we go.
1) A blockade of Syria's ports with the intention of stopping the import (or export) of any arms or materials of military necessities. Stopping Assad and the Islamic fundamentalists among the rebels from committing atrocities means denying them weapons.
2) Tactical strikes within Syria, perhaps carried out in partnership with Israel or other allies, to disrupt convoys of arms to either Assad or the Nursa Front. Carried out effectively in conjunction with step one, this could go a long way towards stopping the violence.
3) Establishment of no fly zones over heavily populated areas to protect civilians. While not all casualties are killed by attacks from the air, strikes from above pose a risk against we can protect relatively easily.
4) Arming of the Free Syrian Army. The ideal outcome for America is for the Free Syrian Army to overcome both the Assad government and the Nursa Front. In order to do this they will need support and perhaps even training. We've reached a point in this conflict when America can and should supply both.
I'm sure there are plenty of other options I am not considering, but again, I maintain that action must be taken to stop the slaughter. That means holding both Assad and the Nursa Front (and the Free Syrian Army when they do wrong) accountable. It is in our national interest to support human rights, and while I do not want America involved in any kind of war, I cannot in good conscious advocate no action while innocent lives are taken for no reason.
Monday, September 9, 2013
Lead by Example
On Saturday I happened to stumble upon a protest against intervention in Syria. Seeing as how I disagree with that position I took it upon myself to insert myself into the conversation in the hopes of furthering debate and learning as much as I could. I ended up having some really good conversations and also finding myself on the receiving end of a few too many taunts. If you're interested you can watch me in action between 34:20-43 minute mark of this clip.
But Saturday's debate and a follow up conversation on Sunday compel me now to sit down and further clarify my views. I was challenged Sunday to explain how it was in the national interest of the United States to intervene in Syria. While I think that we have an obligation to stick up for human rights regardless, I believe I am up to the challenge, and so I want here to elaborate on why I believe it is in our national interest to do so.
I'll start by saying that I acknowledge the difficulties inherent in the position I will shortly outline. For starters, the world is complex place, and as the Syrian situation (among many others) illustrates, there are rarely situations in which we can easily paint a black and white picture of what is right and what is wrong. Even as I advocated intervening in Syria at the protest on Saturday a man followed me around holding a copy of the NYTimes above my head while I spoke. The headline story which I had read the day before was about atrocities committed by the Syrian rebels. In fact there aren't even two sides in Syria, there are more than that, exactly how many I can't say for sure. The fractious rebel groups are lumped together in the media as though a monolith, but they are no single entity.
Despite this caveat, I still think we can and should re-imagine foreign policy, and I believe that if we made human rights the foundation upon which to build this policy and then treated each situation in context trying to determine how to best further our goal of supporting human rights then ultimately the world becomes a safer, more stable place for everyone, including us. It is therefor in our national interest to invest in the promotion and protection of human rights.
The threats we face will morph in their nature as the world changes, but in a world in which it is increasingly easy for individuals or small groups of non-state actors to inflict vast suffering, I believe we must do our best to prevent the development of such individuals. This seems even to me to be an almost outrageously unattainable goal, but belief that the world can be a better place is a prerequisite to making it one. When the United States chooses to promote and protect the rights of others I believe we increase the likelihood that people from elsewhere will respect those rights at home and abroad. In the debate I had yesterday, my worthy opponent advocated - perhaps due to his experience living through the Cold War - for dangerous stability. The idea of peace preserved through the threat of danger. I certainly believe there is something to be said for mutually assured destruction, but that's why I don't fear an attack from Iran. In a world in which individuals can kill thousands, mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent. The leader of a country may choose not to push the button for fear of losing his country, but the individual who does not fear death has shown himself to be more than willing to blow himself up in a public bazar, train, or other crowded venue in which he can inflict terrible harm. It is just the kind of dangerous stability promoted by the Cold War that led to the circumstances in which the newest threats are bred. For years prior to the Arab Spring, the Middle East was a dangerously stable place. Strongmen ruled most countries with an iron fist, and while we have avoided a regional war our support for some of the Middle Eastern regimes and our refusal to stand up for human rights even in those places in which we did not support the rulers has helped create a new breed of enemy. Dangerous stability was maintained through suppression, fear, and torture, and whether through passive or active ignorance we did nothing to stand up for the people being abused. I for one am not surprised that the 9/11 bombers came from Egypt and Saudi Arabia, two countries that are nominally our allies and whose leaders we support(ed), but whose gross violations of human rights have helped shape the scariest threat to peace in our world, and whose repression fostered a hatred and fear that I think is less likely to be found in an open society, the kind we are lucky to have, and the kind we should help shape elsewhere.
What if, rather than supporting or ignoring human rights violations we proactively worked to promote human rights? Of course, this a job that the State Department is already tasked with, but maybe instead of guns and bombs our foreign aid could come in the form of infrastructure investments. Perhaps we could consistently advocate for human rights, even when it is our allies who uncomfortably deny them. More programs to encourage abroad the values we espouse and cherish here would certainly help instill in others the mentality that the atrocities we see in Syria are unacceptable. Of course, we can and should strive to promote civil rights in America as well. I do not maintain that this will be quick or easy. In fact, it will be difficult and take decades if not longer, but if the alternative is ongoing death and destruction that makes the world more dangerous for Americans and others alike, it's an investment I'm willing to make.
In addition to promoting human rights, we must protect them when the time arises. Right now the most fundamental of human rights in being violated in Syria on a grand scale. Our inability to act diminishes our standing in the world, undermines our supposed commitment to human rights, and ultimately makes it more likely that the world 10 year from now will be a more dangerous rather than a safer place. Peace, opportunity, and stability lay the foundation for the world for which we should be striving. Investing in human rights and stopping the violation of human rights when we can promotes peace and stability. I believe we have a moral obligation to stop the bloodshed in Syria, but even if you reject that argument, do you believe the United States will be safer in the future if we do nothing? How many of the 2 million and counting refugees may have lost the opportunity for a stable life and harbor a grudge because we did nothing to stop their plight? What about the young sons of dead fathers, how will they feel and what will they do in the future? What if the bad guys win in Syria whether that means the current regime or the rebel factions who are Islamic extremists? Is our nation safer then?
Advocating for and defending human rights may not always be a successful endeavor, and I do not believe we can or will prevent every future atrocity, although I believe that if we consistently stood up for human rights we will significantly decrease the possibility of such atrocities in the future. Even when our attempts to do good are unsuccessful the intent is still better than the refusal to stand up for what is right. For all of America's flaws, we are still the biggest force for good in the world, and we must lead by example if we hope to make the world and our own country safer. It's hard to lead by example when we actively choose not to participate. Doing nothing is tacit acceptance of atrocious violence. It encourages more violence in the future.
Crafting a better world is no small task, and I don't imagine I will live to see the world I'm imagining as I write this, but I know for certain I won't see that world if my country, the world's leader, will not invest itself in making the lives of others better and enhancing our own national security at the same time.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Moral Obligations
In all the chaos of the last week in Syria, the involved parties have lost sight of an important question: why are we talking about military action in Syria?
We know Syria's regime has used chemical weapons against its own citizens. This shouldn't surprise us since, in fact, it's not the first time this has happened. While chemical weapons are horrible and inflict an increased amount of suffering, they so far have have accounted for about 1,400-1,500 of the more than 100,000 deaths since this conflict began. Perhaps nerve gas caused more suffering than an explosion (and perhaps it didn't), but was it really okay for us to sit idly by while 99,000 innocent people were slaughtered and then get all high and mighty about the last 1,400 because they were killed differently?
I accept that America cannot always be the world's police. We do not have the means to prevent every tragedy or to deter all atrocities. But I cannot and will not accept that the world's mightiest power, a country that spends more than any other on its military, would allow that military to sit idly by while innocent people are slaughtered elsewhere. If we want to be the world's leader we ought to act like it, and sometimes that means making decisions that are difficult and unpopular. I can lay copious reasons why the US should get involved in Syria for our own selfish purposes, but all of those are trumped by the fact that the world's leading advocate for human rights (if, in fact, our nation still bears that mantle) has done absolutely nothing to stop the indiscriminate killing of more than a hundred thousand people.
If America is going to be the world's leader, we must take a stand to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Again, I acknowledge that the United States cannot avert every international human rights crisis, nor can we solve those that arise, but we have a moral obligation to prevent massacres. That we have failed to act repeatedly over the course of the last three years is, frankly, entirely unacceptable.
In a past post I sketched out what some possible interventions might look like, though much of what I proposed was more timely then than it is now. Admittedly, effective intervention in Syria won't be pretty or easy, but things worth doing are rarely easy, and I maintain that those who oppose action in Syria must defend their position by explaining to me why it is acceptable for us to do nothing while more innocent people are killed.
While our options may be tricky or fraught with risks, the rationale for intervention is not. I am not concerned with US credibility except so far as that our failure to act now may encourage others to do worse in the future. If we think 100,000 innocent lives aren't worth fighting for, how many will the next madman kill before we take action? If we want to be a global beacon for human rights, we must guarantee the protection of those rights at home and abroad when we are capable. We currently find ourselves facing a situation in which our actions stand a very good chance of success, and where the most fundamental human right, the right to life itself, is under assault.
Our collective moral compass and our national security concerns both lead to the same conclusion: action is needed to rectify a growing human rights disaster in an increasingly unstable country whose collapse would create far worse circumstances than those which currently exist. I believe President Obama made the right decision to ask for Congressional approval for a strike on Syria. I now hope that the President has a plan in mind to ensure success and that Congress makes the brave vote to save lives.
We know Syria's regime has used chemical weapons against its own citizens. This shouldn't surprise us since, in fact, it's not the first time this has happened. While chemical weapons are horrible and inflict an increased amount of suffering, they so far have have accounted for about 1,400-1,500 of the more than 100,000 deaths since this conflict began. Perhaps nerve gas caused more suffering than an explosion (and perhaps it didn't), but was it really okay for us to sit idly by while 99,000 innocent people were slaughtered and then get all high and mighty about the last 1,400 because they were killed differently?
I accept that America cannot always be the world's police. We do not have the means to prevent every tragedy or to deter all atrocities. But I cannot and will not accept that the world's mightiest power, a country that spends more than any other on its military, would allow that military to sit idly by while innocent people are slaughtered elsewhere. If we want to be the world's leader we ought to act like it, and sometimes that means making decisions that are difficult and unpopular. I can lay copious reasons why the US should get involved in Syria for our own selfish purposes, but all of those are trumped by the fact that the world's leading advocate for human rights (if, in fact, our nation still bears that mantle) has done absolutely nothing to stop the indiscriminate killing of more than a hundred thousand people.
If America is going to be the world's leader, we must take a stand to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Again, I acknowledge that the United States cannot avert every international human rights crisis, nor can we solve those that arise, but we have a moral obligation to prevent massacres. That we have failed to act repeatedly over the course of the last three years is, frankly, entirely unacceptable.
In a past post I sketched out what some possible interventions might look like, though much of what I proposed was more timely then than it is now. Admittedly, effective intervention in Syria won't be pretty or easy, but things worth doing are rarely easy, and I maintain that those who oppose action in Syria must defend their position by explaining to me why it is acceptable for us to do nothing while more innocent people are killed.
While our options may be tricky or fraught with risks, the rationale for intervention is not. I am not concerned with US credibility except so far as that our failure to act now may encourage others to do worse in the future. If we think 100,000 innocent lives aren't worth fighting for, how many will the next madman kill before we take action? If we want to be a global beacon for human rights, we must guarantee the protection of those rights at home and abroad when we are capable. We currently find ourselves facing a situation in which our actions stand a very good chance of success, and where the most fundamental human right, the right to life itself, is under assault.
Our collective moral compass and our national security concerns both lead to the same conclusion: action is needed to rectify a growing human rights disaster in an increasingly unstable country whose collapse would create far worse circumstances than those which currently exist. I believe President Obama made the right decision to ask for Congressional approval for a strike on Syria. I now hope that the President has a plan in mind to ensure success and that Congress makes the brave vote to save lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)