Syria: To Bomb or Not To Bomb

The President says it’s punitive.
The people hear that it will save lives.

The President says it’s to protect Israel.
The people hear that it’s to protect Syrians.

The President says it’s to challenge Iran.
The people hear it’s to challenge Assad.

The President says it’s not about regime change.
Senator McCain hears it’s about regime change.

It is my own view that one of the biggest problems we citizens of the United States have when it comes to political interactions is that we do not listen to our leaders.  We do not hear what they say; we hear what we want them to say.

The second largest problem is that when it comes to contemplated military action, our Congress as a whole debates not whether to but how to.  And as Congress goes, so goes the press by and large.

Thus we are right now in a situation regarding Syria of taking the fact of a strike against that nation as a virtual given, arguing only over the details, when in fact, the whether to at all question is actually the important question of the day.

And thus we are right now in a situation regarding Syria where President Obama is actually being very clear; unfortunately, his citizens are not listening to him.

1. It’s punitive.  Let us take the President at his word: his reason to seek military action against Syria’s government is punitive.  He has actually used the word ‘punitive’.  There are several problems with such an approach:

a. it’s a do-what-I-say-and-not-what-I-do approach to world affairs; and as any (good) parent knows, it’s an approach doomed to fail, for those following and even those not seeming to be paying attention will inevitably do not as we say but as we do.  We supported the use of chemical weapons by Iraq against Iran in the 1980's, to the point of remaining silent in the face of Saddam’s turning those same weapons against his own citizens, the Kurds of the north.  We used white phosphorous on the civilian population of Fallujah.  We will not sign treaties that seek to ban cluster bombs and certain types of land mines.  And even when we do act to oppose such weaponry, we are strangely silent about the manufacturers and holding them accountable.  To claim the moral high ground, it’s axiomatic that one must actually be standing on the moral high ground at the time.

b. If it’s punishment we’re after, there are a whole host of remedies in the international arena.  The International Criminal Court provides a venue for the prosecution of crimes against humanity and what we term war crimes.  The United Nations has vehicles for other remedies, including sanctions, the sending of peacekeepers and inspectors.  In fact, the UN did send inspectors.  Their report has not yet been produced.  Their testing is not yet complete.  To circumvent the United Nations yet again is to effectively say to the world that the United States does not even believe in the possibility of international law and action.  The lone wolf mythology we cling to is costly beyond our ability to imagine, I fear.  And punishment is a poor substitute for a just peace, especially a punishment that seeks to say that killing in a particular way is wrong by killing in a different way, but killing nonetheless.

2. It’s about Israel, not Syria.  The fear about chemical weapons is as much, if not more, about our concern for the people of Israel than it is for the people of Syria.  It is commonly accepted (although not publicly stated) that the source of information/ intelligence about this most recent attack is Israel.  Given its geographical proximity and their historical hostility, Israel is right to be concerned.  Whether Israel’s concerns and ours align in this particular instance is something that should be discussed.  It’s not.  The President has named the concern.  But no one else seems interested in discussing, weighing and evaluating it.  And remember point #1 – this is about punishment.  The President has said so.  There is no goal to save Syrian lives.  There is no reason put forth that the contemplated action by the US will reduce violence in Syria.  Many believe it will have the opposite effect of escalating an already violent conflict.  When acting pre-emptively on behalf of a party such as Israel, we have to at least admit that we’re willing to sacrifice Syrians to do it.

3. Challenging Iran.  Secretary of State John Kerry stated that one reason to strike against Syria is to send a message to Iran, North Korea and others that chemical weapons may not be used with impunity.  Setting aside the cruel irony of the US telling Iran that it will not tolerate chemical weaponry when it was the US that enabled Saddam to use chemical weapons against Iran in the 1980's war (by providing Saddam with critical intelligence on where and when to launch his attack (Democracy Now), are we really going to kill Syrians in order to teach Iran a lesson?  Are we, in so doing, going to ignore the mutual-defense pact between Syria and Iran?  Are we really going to provoke Iran and its allies, drawing them into (or further into) this conflict?  Did we learn nothing about how global conflicts begin from World War I?  Are we really interested in restarting the practice of proxy wars we retired with the Cold War?  Are we really ignoring Russia and China in all this?  Are we really so immature as to believe that to explore alternatives to military air strikes is ‘doing nothing’?  Is our press so ineffectual as to ignore these vital questions?

4. It’s not about regime change.  President Obama (who will be making the decisions, no matter with whom he consults) has been very clear: he is not seeking regime change.  Senator McCain is not listening and insists that regime change is what must occur.  The problem I see is that following the course of either man does nothing to reduce or eliminate the bloodbath that is Syria today.  We the people would do well to remember that we’re not in this to save the Syrians.  This is not the good guys versus bad guys stuff of movies.  This is exactly what our President is saying it is: killing some Syrians, destroying some territory, to show the Syrian leadership that doing what we’ve said not to do will cost him because we said it would.  It’s a penalty.  No more, no less.

What might we do instead if we’re really interested in helping Syrians?

1. If you’re a praying person, pray.  One of the most important lessons I’ve learned about prayer (wish I could recall the source) is that God does not reverse the past.  What has happened already has happened already and it will not be undone.  Prayer, effective prayer, deals with the present and the future.  For those of us in the United States particularly, we might pray for wisdom, patience, forbearance, and mercy on the part of our leadership.   We might pray that our own eyes be opened to new pathways of peace and the strength, courage and dedication of resources to make them happen.  Weaponry as a problem-solving technique has become too easy in our time.  Military solutions are our go-to position all too often, ironic given its largely ineffectiveness at meeting our stated goals of peace.  This praying isn’t about patriotism.  It isn’t about having our own way.  It isn’t about undoing the past.  It’s about being empowered by the God of all to do right in the world and by the world.  The work of doing right is hard.  It takes lots of time and effort and money.  And it doesn’t often get a parade at the end.  And sometimes it gets a cross.  For a Christian at least, that shouldn’t be a surprise.  So let us praying people pray like we mean it and live like we believe it.

2. Invest in peace and the ways of peace.  We might marshal our impressive resources in the cause of just peace -- for at no time in our nation's history have we dedicated the resources for peace preparedness that we do to war preparedness. What might we do now?

a. we might pony up really big money to make refugee camps and other sites genuine places of safe haven.  On an individual basis, we might donate money to UNHCR (United Nations High Commission on Refugees) to provide for the masses of Syrian refugees (shout out to Jon Stewart on the Daily Show for highlighting this issue and way to help on September 3's show).

b. We might mobilize massive numbers of trained peacemakers, mediators and folks trained in the ways not merely of conflict resolution but also of building a civil society based upon universal humanitarian goals. We mobilize our military - why not our non-military?   And there are Syrians who are trying desperately to build and rebuild their own civil society.

c. We might ask our elected leadership to stop any support for the rebels in Syria unless and until they attend peace talks in Geneva.  We might ask other nations supporting the Assad regime (Russia and Iran) to do the same.

d. We might start punishing those who produce chemical weapons in international tribunals.

e. When it comes to the dedication of troops, we might use the United Nations - peacekeepers from the UN actually have a pretty good track record - a fact that gets overlooked. (and yes, I remember Rwanda).

f. We might wait for the UN inspection team to come back with its report/findings. I am no fan of Mr. Putin, but he actually asked a pretty good question - why would Assad use chemical weapons exactly when the UN inspection team was in country? Assad might be a monster, but is he really that much of an idiot?

g. If the goal is punishment,  we might treat this as a crime.  If so,

(1) proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required. Shouldn't we have the same level of proof for the killing of many as we do of the killing of one? and

(2) there are already processes in place in the international community for that. So charge Assad with crimes against humanity and prosecute him for them.

(3) If, on the other hand, the goal is to stop or reduce the numbers of civilians from being killed, we have to remember that this is a civil war and all sides are armed to varying degrees and all sides are using violence to impose their will both upon the civilians as well as the opposition. The only thing I know to change that dynamic (other than a clear winner, which rarely happens) is negotiated peace. The bottom line for me is that the answer to grab our guns just hasn't been effective, ever, at reducing or eliminating the numbers of the dead -- it's only been effective at giving one side or the other clear victory after the bloodbath.  Isn't it well past time to commit , really commit, to the ways of peace?

(4) A side note worth remembering: the other day NPR interviewed 2 sisters in Syria - they were of opposite opinions. Family. One favored the rebels and hated the Assad regime for its cruelties. The other feared the rebels, particularly as a woman, certain that her own life would not be worth much if they were to prevail. When I jump into someone else's fight, I'd better have a good idea about all that's at stake. Ask the Iraqis.

When I take up a gun, a bomb, or any instrumentality of violence, I am not stopping people dying. What I'm doing is simply changing the cast of characters who will die.

And logically, if I am 'letting' people die by not bombing Syria, am I then responsible if the bombing results not in less deaths but more, if Assad increases rather than decreases his attacks on the civilian population?

We can't predict with certainty the outcomes of actions because we're not in control of the universe of possibilities. That doesn't mean we do nothing. But it does mean that we dare not act surprised when our efforts to 'help' backfire with more violence that we participated in escalating.  ( See Slate report on the increase in civilian deaths in which other countries intervene in armed conflict.)

But I remain stuck in pondering whether it really is the best we humans can do when children are dying to drop more bombs that risk killing more children? Why can't we create safe havens for them to run to? Why can't we teach their parents a better way? Why can't we spend the money on things that actually work? I wish I knew.

__________________
Other posts I've written about Syria:  There's a War a Comin; Jumping Rope in the Sand, Candidate Questions on Foreign Policy, and Grading the Debate.

China Patterns

Lucille and I stand in her

Spode Maritime Rose pattern of my china,
which belonged to my Grandmother,
Bertha Arminta Taylor Keadle

dining room and sort through
her beautiful china patterns
choosing what we will use
for the Mother’s Tea, marveling
in turn this one or that – me oohing
and ahing genuine appreciation
for the colors and designs and
feeling the fine thinness of one
cup so delicate I fear to hold it
too long in these inelegant paws
as Lucille tells me of this auntie
and that cousin and another of the
sisters – gone – all long gone – who
left behind these marks of beauty
to be shared by women they will
not know in times they will not have
holding their treasures with hands
that touch, meet, only on the surface
of the beauty of their beloved things

I love china patterns

Grading the Debate

Grading the Debate

My Scoring of the 1st 2012 Presidential Debate

With an important post-script about Syria & Turkey

I score President Obama the winner over Governor Romney by a score of 26-10.

How did I arrive at a score?  I flowed the debate, as best I could.  Even though this was not actually a debate in any sense of the word, I scored it as if it were and to that end, I took each candidate at their word (leaving my own pre-knowledge outside the room and leaving fact checking to others).

Clash is the debate concept that each debater meets the issue(s) raised by their opponent directly and responds, with evidence rather than with mere assertion.  Mostly what I ended up scoring was clash or the lack of clash.  This approach was in order to capture, as best I was able, the content of what each candidate had to say in relation to what the other said, which is the essence of debate.  If there weren't an opponent in the room, there would be no debate.

Round 1 - The economy and jobs: Obama claimed to have created 5 million new jobs, to have saved the automobile industry, that housing is on the rise, and that money saved from the two wars the US has been involved in will be used to ‘rebuild America’, and a plan to close tax loopholes regarding overseas investments, none of which Romney responded to.  5 points Obama.  Both agreed on a need to invest in skill building of the work force and education.  Obama specifically referenced Race to the Top educational reform, the plan to invest in 100,000 additional math and science teachers and to keep tuition affordable, none of which Romeny addressed.  1 point Obama.  Obama referenced developing new energies, increasing American energy production and increased oil and natural gas production, which Romney countered with the fact that energy prices have increased under Obama, public energy leases have been cut in half under Obama and increased development has occurred on private lands, to which Obama did not respond.  1 point Romney.  Romney’s tax savings plan was attacked by Obama with specific figures ($5 trillion in tax cuts, $2 trillion in increased military spending, e.g.), saying that these could not be offset by eliminating tax deductions.  Romney countered with the assertion that it isn’t true, to which Obama responded that the math is clear and it can’t be done without other cuts or tax increases to the middle class.  1 point Obama.  Assuming a nexus between taxes and job creation (as both seemed to do, at least part of the time), Obama claimed to have lowered taxes 18 times to the benefit of small businesses, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.  On Obama’s proposal to raise taxes for those with an income above $250,000, there was clash about what is a small business, how much employment the top tier of small businesses generate, and finally, Romney’s claim that the top tier of 3% of small business owners employ 1/4 of the work force and enactment of Obama’s tax increase would result in a loss of 700,000 jobs, to which Obama did not respond.  1 point Romney.  On the big picture, there was a bit of a tie: Romney’s claim that in the last 4 years, 24 million people have been out of work; and Obama’s claim that under the Clinton/Democrat model, there was record prosperity and under the Bush/Republican plan, there was record financial crisis - 1 point each.

Round 2 - The economy and the deficit: Obama urges the elimination of corporate subsidies to the oil industry, which Romney countered with the fact that the same subsidies were extended by Obama to alternative energy companies, to which Obama did not respond.  1 point Romney.  Obama urged eliminating deductions for corporations such as for corporate jets, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.  Obama claimed a record on deficit reduction of eliminating 77 government programs, 18 educational programs, saving tens of billions in eliminating Medicare fraud and 15 billion in waste, taking 1 trillion out of the budget, a 4 trillion deficit reduction plan, a plan to increase revenues by $1 for every $2.50 in spending cuts, to none of which specifics Romney responded.  1 point Obama.

Round 3 - The economy and entitlements: Noting a problem with the usage of the word ‘entitlements’, Obama said that Romney’s voucher plan is estimated to cost each person covered an average of $6,000 per year, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.  Romney proposes shifting to needs-based coverage, to which Obama did not respond.  1 point Romney.  Romney overall attacks the expense of provision of these benefits, to which Obama responded that Medicare has less administrative costs than private insurance, which also adds in the expense of its profit for doing business.  1 point Obama.  Obama cited AARP claiming that Obamacare extends the life of Medicare by 8 years, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.  Obama said that repeal of Obamacare would cost on average an additional $600 per year in prescription drugs, increase in co-pays, and benefitting only the insurance companies, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.

Round 3a - The economy and government regulation: Romney said that while some regulation is necessary, it can also become excessive and actually do unintended harm, citing Dodd-Frank banking regulations as an example.  Obama did not respond directly to Romney’s challenge about excessive or over-regulation.  1 point Romney.  Obama specifically linked the recent economic crisis to an absence of regulation, with which Romney either agreed or did not expressly refute.  1 point Obama.  Romney said Dodd-Frank hurts the economy with provisions like protecting banks deemed ‘too big to fail’, to which Obama responded that the banks had paid back the monies loaned to them by the government with interest.  1 point Obama.  Romney said that he would keep ‘some’ of the provisions of Dodd-Frank (used as an example of government regulation).  Obama charged that Romney had previously said he would repeal Dodd-Frank, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.

Round 4 - Health Care Romney asserts that Obama cuts Medicare to pay for Obama care and that Obamacare will kill jobs because businesses are less likely to hire workers because of the additional burdens it imposes, to which Obama did not respond.  2 points Romney.  Romney charged that a private unelected board would be making medical decisions for patients under Obamacare, to which Obama responded that the board did not deal with individuals but with industry best practice standards, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.  Obama claims that repeal of Obama care will result in 50 million people without health insurance, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.  Both claimed the provision of health care to be an important goal, but when challenged by Obama to reveal what his plan is, Romney did not respond save to say he would have one.  1 point Obama.  On the Obamacare model and its workability, Obama asserted that it is the same model as that enacted by Romney while governor of Mass. Romney shifted the argument to say that Obamacare did not have bi-partisan support, to which Obama responded that it was a Republican idea using the same plan as that in Mass, with actually the same advisors helping craft it.  1 point Obama.  Romney asserted that according to the CBO, Obamacare would result in 20 million people losing their health insurance, to which Obama did not directly respond.  1 point Romney.  Obama claimed that the rate of growth of health insurance premiums has slowed, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.  Romney asserted that the (federal) government is a bad bet as an organization or institution for saving money, to which Obama did not respond at this point, although Obama had earlier made the case that Medicare administrative costs are lower than private insurance, which when added to profits private companies received, results in savings to the consumer.  No point to either candidate.  Obama challenged Romney’s plan as failing to provide for coverage of pre-existing conditions.  Romney denied that was true.  Obama responded with an explanation of Romney’s plan (which sounded like COBRA), which would not provide universal coverage of pre-existing conditions, to which Romney did not further respond.  1 point Obama.  Romney’s health care policy foundation is his statement, “the private market and individual responsibility always work best”, to which Obama challenged him to explain how he would enact to provide health care and why keep it a secret, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.

Round 5 - The Role of Government - what is government’s ‘mission’?  After outlining their general principles about the role of government, the debate focused on education and the question of whether providing education or improving the quality thereof is a role of the federal government.  It is to that portion that I addressed my judgments, making no score on the two men’s statements of principles.  Obama alleged that Romney would cut the education budget by 20%; Romney said he wouldn’t.  No points.  Romney offered his school voucher proposal, to which Obama did not respond.  1 point Romney.  Romney attacked Obama on things like investments in green technologies and an implied attack of corruption (saying that Obama gave federal green monies to campaign contributors).  This was off topic, as Romney never tied it to education.  No points.  Obama cited his program of linking community colleges with industry, providing training for students, who are guaranteed a job at the end of the program as an example of the role the government can play in education, to which Romney did not resopnd.  1 point Obama.  Obama also cited his program which eliminates banks as ‘middlemen’ in student loans, saving students on the cost of repaying their loans, to which Romney did not respond.  1 point Obama.

Round 6 - Governing and gridlock Both men spoke about their aspirations and approaches.  No points.

On the substance of any debate, which is comprised of the often boring details and minutia of an issue, the winner was clear on my flow chart.  Mr. Romney tended to speak in broad terms.  That does not mean what he had to say was either unimportant or untrue.  It does mean that when it comes to debate, there was often little upon which to judge his performance.

Some general observations about the style aspects and other random thoughts

1. Pundits asked for a substantive debate.  Even observing that Gov. Romney spoke more generally, both men in fact gave a substantive debate, outlining their worldviews when it comes to governing and at least some of their particular ideas about how we go about achieving their vision for the United States.  The sadly ironic thing is that it was that very provision of substance that results in many claiming Mr. Obama ‘lost’ the debate on style points, which simply demonstrates that we apparently have absolutely no interest in how we are going to be governed and are only concerned about whether we like the person, or think the person is most like us, or some other such ephemera.

2. Here’s my take on who you should vote for, for whatever it’s worth: if you believe that government should get out of your way, be the least intrusive as possible in your journey towards your dream, leave it entirely to you to choose, whether you choose badly or well, vote for a Republican.  If you believe government should help you and provide for the common good, even if not your own particular good, then vote for a Democrat.  It is a philosophical difference.  It does not mean that one is necessarily morally superior to the other.  And the fact is that most of us believe government should land somewhere in the middle of these two poles.

3. Both men ran roughshod over the moderator.  Mr. Romney was more obvious, interrupting Mr.Lehrer often, even talking over him.  Most seemed to have found that appealing, as Mr. Romney was assertive, like a president should be.  I thought it was just rude.  But Mr. Obama ignored Mr. Lehrer as well; he was just more subtle.  One female commentator noted last night that maybe it’s a gender difference, but she didn’t like it.  I agree.  If you’ve agreed to a format beforehand, honor it.  If you haven’t, don’t tell us you have.

4. I just googled ‘judging the presidential debate by content rather than style’ and got 65 million+ hits, but not one of them was about the debate that actually happened last night.  Not one.  That, I think, is an incredibly sad commentary on us as a people.

Finally, in my blog yesterday, I had a couple of questions I wanted answered.  Mr. Romney answered the questions I had for him:

Mr. Romney, if you wish to eliminate or substantially change the approach of progressive taxation, as your talking points suggest, upon what basis do you claim that this shift actually results in an increase in prosperity for everyone?  And as a subset of that question, if you have to sacrifice one of your taxation goals in order to achieve a balance to the budget, which goal is the most expendable from your point of view?

As I understand his position, Mr. Romney believes that lowered taxes on the wealthy (the job creators, as he describes them) generally frees up more capital for them to invest, which creates more jobs.  He did not say those words.  What he said was, “taxes slow growth”.  I extrapolate the rest, but I think I understand his position.  The second aspect was much more clear: what would Mr. Romney sacrifice to achieve a balance to the budget?  Everything – when it comes to government spending.  Everything except military spending.  And social security.  And education.  And Medicare for those currently receiving it.  But Mr. Romney made it very clear that under no circumstances would he increase taxes.

My question for Mr. Obama was answered as well.

Mr. Obama, given that as president, you are required to work with Congress, how do you propose to enact your economic programs (or any of your programs, for that matter) in the face of organized, concerted congressional opposition?  It is not enough to merely blame Congress.  What do you plan to do about it?

He said that he would take all ideas on board when it comes to solving our problems as a nation, whatever the source.  He said that he would take care to well-describe his plan so that there was understanding about what it is and what it is not.  And he said that occasionally, he would say no, to both friend and foes.

I believe them both.

Now to the hard work of citizenship and deciding where that takes us as a nation and what I intend to do about it when I enter the voting booth.

An important post-script

Yesterday as these two men were preparing to meet and debate, one of them had some other things on his mind, no doubt.

Yesterday Syria (or someone from Syria’s opposition groups) bombed Turkey.  This isn’t the first time.  But it is the first time that Turks were killed.  Five people, including a mother and her three children were killed.  Turkey responded by bombing Syria.  NATO weighed in as did Secretary of State Hilary Clinton.

And Turkey’s military asks its parliament today for the authority to act against Syria.  Early indicators are that this is more symbolic than an actual precursor to outright war between the two nations and thus far, Syria has taken a conciliatory and apologetic approach with Turkey, promising to investigate how this could have happened.

But the border between the two countries is a tense place as Syria’s civil war continues and rebels move into Turkey for cover.

And lest we forget, Syria counts among her allies Iran, Russia and China.

World wars don’t always or often begin in the obvious place.  They begin with a skirmish there, an insult here, a death or two, revenge killings, drawing in of allies, and escalation.

Thus far it seems that in the aftermath, both Turkey and Syria are seeking ways to avoid war with each other – a good thing.  But allies are also being pulled in.

If you do nothing else today about world politics, pray for Syria and Turkey, pray for world leaders, that cooler heads prevail and that escalation is avoided.  In the U.S., pray that the man who you think didn’t have such a great debate last night be filled with wisdom and vision and the courage to resist violence as a problem-solving technique.  Pray like the world depends on it.