War or Peace in Syria?

Just when you thought US military intervention in Syria was getting less likely and perhaps diplomacy would win out in the end, there's this from the Washington Post:
The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures. The shipments began streaming into the country over the past two weeks, along with separate deliveries by the State Department of vehicles and other gear — a flow of material that marks a major escalation of the U.S. role in Syria’s civil war.

Then, today, on one of the morning news shows was a discussion of how we could be assured that the chemical weapons would be secured and destroyed.  The lead-in was so insane (paraphrased, I think,  a member of the "intelligence" community - "it's a scam") that I didn't bother to listen to it.  So let's hope that the Obama administration is not going to continually move the goal posts on this issue, declare non-compliance, and then violate international law by bombing Syria.  We don't need another $4 trillion war in the Middle East.  You would think that the neocons have been totally discredited by now but somehow they are still yapping and still have their supporters in Congress.  

Unbelievable as it may seem, Russian president Putin seems to have gotten it right in an Op-Ed in the New York Times.  In it, the Russian president says a military strike at Syria "would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism," and "could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa." [USA Today, Sept.12] 

Putin's complete op-ed, in which he also cautions against American exceptionalism, can be found at this link to The New York Times article.

A destabilized Syria will provide Al-Qaeda and other jihadist groups with a new base from which to operate.  Bombing Syria in violation of international law will result in still more civilian casualties as well as destabilize the country.  The only real answer is that both the Western powers supporting the rebels and Russia and Iran supporting the Assad government in this civil war must stop the flow of arms to both sides, force them both to the peace table, enact an immediate and indefinite cease fire, and provide massive amounts of humanitarian, not military, aid to the suffering people of Syria.  Any other approach will be counterproductive, ineffective, and, ultimately, tragic.

MLK, BHO, and Non-Violence in the 21st Century

Barack Obama was officially sworn in for his second term in a low key ceremony at the White House on Sunday.  His victory in 2008 and here again in 2012 is a testimony to the efficacy of the work of the civil rights workers of 50 years ago.  On Monday as President Obama was more publicly sworn in, the nation celebrated the most famous of those mid-twentieth century heroes, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.   King’s legacy is one of non-violent resistance that was instrumental in ending the institutionalized racism of those days.  Opposition to war goes hand-in-hand with nonviolence and towards the end of his life, MLK became more and more outspoken an opponent to the Vietnam War.  In an ultimate irony, his death, his assassination, came as a result of violence, specifically gun violence - once again in the news these days.   

Effective as non-violent resistance was in the twentieth century in Gandhi’s India, in pre-Civil Rights America, and in the struggle against apartheid in South Africa, it is unfortunately not much in vogue as a tactic or as a strategy today.  Admittedly, there are a few recent examples where non-violence has been effective.  The Arab Spring is one such example.  The Occupy Movement has the potential to be another.  What all the great non-violent movements of the past had in common was their ability to appeal to the public’s moral sense, to the innate sense of justice of the majority, to the sense of human decency of those who held power.  

Basic to the effectiveness of non-violence is a common respect for life and for justice.  If the public audience or the holders of power lack this basic sense, then the task of the non-violent protester becomes more difficult. 

So where does non-violence stand today in the value scheme of the 21^st century human?   Sadly, things have not progressed much in this regard from 50 years ago.  Non-violence is not the tactic of choice, say, of the Islamic extremists who took over the natural gas plant in Algeria – ultimately resulting in the deaths of 37 hostages and 29 militants.  Nor is it the preferred tactic of today’s American “hawks” – the neocons who are pushing for a more militant stance against Iran.  Witness their attempt to derail Chuck Hagel from his nomination as Defense Secretary because he dared point out the obvious – that a war with Iran would have serious consequences for the region.  These are the same band of neocons who led (or more appropriately, misled) us into war with Iraq in their attempt to implement their Project for a New American Century.  We saw how well that turned out.  Unbelievably these neocons still get attention, they have not gone away.  You would have thought that their arrogant, jingoistic approach to international relations would have longed ceased to merit any consideration whatsoever.

At least Obama is the President for the next four years and perhaps he can resist the drumbeat towards a war with Iran that will, sooner or later, be emanating from the lunatic fringe on the right.  Within American society today, there exists a tendency to favor the violent solution over the nonviolent – we have by far the highest rate of gun ownership and gun deaths among developed industrialized nations; our military expenditures exceed those of the next 13 (almost 14) highest defense budgets combined; the US public, unlike those in almost every other nation on Earth, still overwhelmingly supports capital punishment.  “A recent Gallup Poll measured Americans' abstract support for the death penalty at 63%, the second-lowest level of support for capital punishment since 1978, and a significant decline from 1994, when 80% of respondents were in favor of the death penalty.” [My emphasis added; quote is from the Death Penalty Information Center web page]

John F. Kennedy, who was assassinated by a gun man 50 years ago this coming November, said “war will cease to exist when conscientious objectors to enjoy the same prestige as warriors.”  That day has yet to come. 

Both MLK and JFK were renowned for their speeches.  On Monday, Barack Obama gave a rousing speech that rivals some of theirs.  He emphasized equality, fairness, and opportunity.  He promised to respond to climate change and mentioned our need to come together as a people to meet our challenges.  There was even a nod toward diplomacy as the primary means of managing international relations.  After the obligatory mention of our “strength of arms”, he said, “We will show the courage to try and resolve our differences with other nations peacefully – not because we are naïve about the dangers we face, but because engagement can more durably lift suspicion and fear.”  Not exactly Nobel Peace Prize winner quality but on balance better than war-and fear-mongering.

A few of the more memorable passages from his speech:

We, the people, still believe that enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war.

… we reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.

We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few.

…we must be a source of hope to the poor, the sick, the marginalized, the victims of prejudice – not out of mere charity, but because peace in our time requires the constant advance of those principles that our common creed describes: tolerance and opportunity; human dignity and justice.

The President laid out a progressive vision for our nation – whether he will be able to fulfill the vision is another matter.  The opposition is gearing for a fight.

Links

Algerian HostageCrisis [CNN]

Neocons’ Project for A New American Century [Global Research’s Centre for Research onGlobalization]

Death Penalty Information Center

Comic relief: Mitch McConnell’s “They’re coming for your guns” email…just in case you thought there would be any cooperation from Republicans [Huffington Post]

Romney. the Neocons, and Iran

Remember how “W”, advised by the Neocon cabal, took us to war and invaded a nation that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks, absolutely no Al-Qaeda presence, and absolutely no weapons of mass destruction?

Well, watch out if the Mittster is elected. Many of these same Neocons are whispering in Romney's ear about Iran. His rhetoric over the past couple of weeks has made it clear that the nation would have to be crazy to elect this man to lead the country. (Of course, if the Republicans can effectively deny five million voters their basic democratic right to vote, he may just pull it off.) Besides taking hundreds of billions of dollars from domestic programs for military weapons that even the armed forces don't want, Romney has given every indication of letting the right wing Israeli leader Netanyahu call the shots on the timing of “military action” against Iran regardless of how damaging that would be to the United States. His political posturing and criticism of Obama's handling of the attacks on American embassies were totally offbase and show him unfit to lead this country in any capacity.

I've criticized Obama for staying in Afghanistan, for taking too long to extricate the US from Iraq, and for being played like a fiddle by Isreal's right wing leader Benjamin Netanyahu on the Palestinian – Israeli peace process. But at least Obama has finally gotten the troops out of Iraq and set a date when US combat forces will be out of Afghanistan. He appears to be making a good faith effort to negotiate a solution to the Iran nuclear program. In addition, Israeli overreaction to Palestinian actions has been relatively muted with nothing to date to compare with the devastating incursion into Palestinian territority at the end of the Bush's second term that more than 1000 Palestinians dead, many or most of the victims civilians. Can you imagine Romney putting any kind of restraint on Netanyahu? Yes that same Netanyahu who said earlier this week, in the middle of the election cycle in an effort to try to force Obama's hand, that if the Obama administration was unwilling to set fixed red lines that Iran could not cross, it “has no ‘moral right’ to restrain Israel from taking military action of its own” ?

Bad as his domestic policies would be, Romney's foreign and defense policies would bring about the same loss of US influence and respect seen during the Bush years. Combined with his tax breaks for the very wealthy and his deregulation, another costly war would be the crowning blow to the United States economy. We'd be worse off than with Bush. To say Romney knows nothing about foreign affairs may have been a mistatement on my part. If he really believes the garbage that's been coming out of his mouth recently, he would be downright dangerous.

US Ends Iraq War

After nearly nine years, all American troops are finally leaving Iraq.  The United States formally ended the war today - eight years, seven months and 14 days after the so-called "mission accomplished" speech.  Nearly 4500 Americans lost their lives.  Thankfully there will be no more from this particular war.  Welcome home. 

The costs of this totally unnecessary neocon war have been enormous.  And, the increasingly irrelevant John McCain and increasingly misguided Cheney family to the contrary, the withdrawal is long past due.  In addition, the official number of wounded Americans is more than 33,000.  The toll on Iraqis was much greater - a minimum of 100,000 - 125,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since the US invaded (Iraq Body Count website).  Some other estimates are much higher (e.g., Lancet/Johns Hopkins study on the "excessive" Iraqi deaths).  The total US price tag for the Iraq War will eventually reach 3 trillion dollars with the cost to other countries about the same order of magnitude (Stiglitz and Bilmes, Washington Post article).  For a good summary of Stiglitz and Bilmes analysis of the total cost of the war, see the 2008 article by Aida Edemariam in The Guardian.

The Iraq War is the greatest US foreign policy debacle since Vietnam.  It has immeasurably damaged the US reputation throughout the world.  It has damaged the world and national economy.  It was based on false intelligence and "sold" to a gullible and scared American public with deception, arrogance and lies.  Senator McCain, you have it completely wrong.  It was the neocons who misled the country into this unnecessary war of aggression and it is they, not the President who finally extracted us from Iraq, who will be judged most harshly by history.