Syria’s Weapons of Mass Deterrence?

Tags

Aleppo, America, armed terrorist thugs, armed thugs, assad, bashar al assad, Damascus, Free Syrian Army, freedom, homs, humanitarian intervention, idlib, international, international community, international relations, intervention, iran, iraq, justice, Libya, media, NNPT, NPT, nuclear, nuclear weapons, politics, Qaddafi, security, State Department, Syria, terror, terrorist, terrorists, threats, UN, united states, United States of America, US State Department, war, weapons of mass destruction, WMD, world

Here’s a worrying admission: Syrian officials have admitted to possessing “weapons of mass destruction”, though they claim they would “never use them on civilians…no matter how the crisis evolves”.  The weapons are reserved for “foreign” invaders.  Comforting? Not really.

“Weapons of mass destruction” is a loaded term to begin with.  While there are standard definitions for such weapons, has the Syrian government not already sanctioned the killing of its people on a “mass” scale?  Maybe nearly 20,000 lives violently extinguished over a 16 and a half month period is not massive enough.  I guess it all depends on how one defines the word “mass”, but semantics aside, it’s evident that tens of thousands of Syrians have died and many more have been injured by weapons, causing gut-wrenching destruction.

“WMD” or not, how is anyone–Syrian citizen or otherwise–supposed to trust Syrian authorities?  Enough have proven themselves untrustworthy and unreliable at best and extraordinarily cruel and willing to do anything to hold onto power at worst.  “Don’t worry.  We would never release this Ricin or drop these Anthrax-tipped bombs.  Your children will be safe.”  Tell that to the people of Homs, whose city has been shelled relentlessly since the beginning of the “crisis”.  Or tell that to the millions of residents of other areas of the country whose names appear in international news stories daily because of the constantly rising death toll.

The message is, then: We draw the line at using WMD on our citizens–or so we say–but conventional weapons are fine.  Of course, this scene-stealing story might very well be a strategic attempt to ward off would-be interventionist nations.  I’m not quite sure how that would work in the U.S. case since we all know the United States predicated its invasion of Iraq mainly on the premise of the existence of WMD there.  However nuanced the international relations considerations were in this decision (which I’d say were not very nuanced at all), the fact remains: The United States invaded Iraq, a country believed to have WMD, that ended up not even having WMD.  I think if anything seriously deters America from intervening in a humanitarian fashion in Syria, it won’t be the Syrian government’s claims of WMD.  These claims might even serve as a motivator.

The Syrian government can’t be trusted.  The world is supposed to take officials at their word when they claim they wouldn’t use weapons of mass destruction on their own people?  I don’t buy it, and I don’t think informed Syrians do, either.  Bashar al-Assad and members of his regime have continued to assert that Syria is under attack by “armed terrorist thugs”.  They have claimed foreign influence against the country before.  Why wouldn’t they attack these so-called enemies of the state?  Even if they don’t really believe what they’re saying, the government’s rhetoric underscores the very reasoning for why it could seek to justify future WMD attacks on its own civilians.

The calculation that strong enough weapons can insulate a country from a kind of breeching its borders foreign intervention is an understandable one since the United States has limited its actions in certain countries with known nuclear weapons, although even this assertion is not always true.  Drones in Pakistan, anyone?  Obviously, China and North Korea have much larger militaries and there are regional considerations, etc.  There are many variables.  Iran is an interesting case.  Regardless, when fewer than ten countries in the world have nuclear weapons, it is too small a sample to study in the case of the effect of interventionist policies on members of this exclusive club.  And even then…Syria does not have nuclear weapons, the crown jewel of fear-inducing weapons caches.

All in all, the existence of WMD in Syria is worrying.  The brazenness with which this information was announced is probably both a symbol of desperation and an attempt at showing strength, a last ditch defense mechanism.  The danger of such weapons is very real and duly frightening, but it shouldn’t deter the international community (whose “wait and see” ethic hasn’t worked very well) from doing more.  Far fewer people died in Libya than have already died in Syria.  In a strange moment of outreach to the “West”, Qaddafi relinquished his country’s nuclear weapons program in 2005, but WMD were still found in 2011, when he was overthrown and the humanitarian intervention was undertaken.  Again, comparing Syria to Libya brings up a host of other variables.  My point is that WMD need not be a disqualifier from further international action in Syria.

Who is the real armed terrorist thug, Assad?  If we are true to our ideals of defeating terrorism around the world–and this is not only state-sponsored terrorism, it is state-practiced terrorism—American government representatives would not turn the other way, issuing empty statements on how “Assad’s days are numbered”.  This is the official U.S. State Department line, by the way.  If we are committed to the rights of freedom and security for our fellow human beings, then Syria’s WMD tease should serve as a wake up call.

Advertisements

Invisible Intervention

Tags

#stopkony, 2012, africa, anderson cooper, arab spring, awareness, bosnia, campaign, cnn, cyber, daraa, egypt, facebook, genocide, global, hama, homs, humanitarian intervention, idlib, international, international affairs, international relations, internet, intervention, invisible children, iran, israel, john mccain, joseph kony, joseph kony 2012, kony, kosovo, Libya, massacre, mccain, middle east, military, military intervention, murder, NATO, news, politics, rwanda, senator john mccain, social media, Syria, tunisia, turkey, twitter, U.N., uganda, UN, united nations, uprising, violence, war, war zone, warfare, world

This post is going to be controversial. I give anyone who is reading this fair warning now.

I’d like to discuss the concept of humanitarian intervention in war zones around the world. I’ve mentioned my feelings on the genocide in Syria in a previous post. (Yes, I think the situation can adequately be described as genocide.) I believe humanitarian intervention in Syria in the form of military intervention is crucial at this point since the cruelty and murder of the Assad regime seems nowhere near abating. My thoughts on the Syrian situation are clear. I will elaborate further on those soon. While few people are actively speaking out on the genocide in Syria, a firestorm has erupted in the cyber world in relation to another issue: millions of people have been alerted to the cruelties visited upon Africans by the tyrant Joseph Kony, notorious for his horrific manipulation of children used in his child army. Joseph Kony is a killer and a despot, but I’m shocked that there is so much outrage about him in relation to Bashar al Assad. To be fair, these are two different scenarios. I’m seeking to illuminate the idea that people can get fired up about something via social media, and while this concept is amazing in theory (as with the dissemination of information in the Arab Spring), it also leads to the dissemination of disinformation and an inaccurate, superficial view of foreign conflict.

To begin with, let’s examine the situation in Syria. As I’ve said, I’ve described the situation before in a previous post, and if anyone is interested, he or she can look at my post “A Screaming Syria”. Senator John McCain does a very good job of describing the current state of affairs in Syria in remarks he gave to the Senate floor a few days ago, calling for multilateral military intervention with the U.S. leading. He is one of the few to do so, and in an unequivocal way, making the rounds on television news stations and publicizing his views on Twitter. His speech, which I think should be required reading for everyone can be viewed here: http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.FloorStatements&ContentRecord_id=e460be36-c488-e7de-8c38-64c3751adfce

As Senator McCain mentions in his Senate speech, the United States and NATO intervened militarily in Bosnia and Kosovo when similar situations were occurring. As he mentioned to Anderson Cooper on AC:360 (also one of the only shows to shed a consistent light on Syria), the lack of intervention in Rwanda now stands as a shameful moment in our history. It is a moment when genocide was allowed to occur. I will not get into the politics of that particular event, but even the uninitiated know it was horrific. Surprisingly, the Senator claimed that “nothing in this world is predetermined” in reference to the Obama Administration’s repeated declarations that al Assad’s demise is “inevitable”. Essentially, morality dictates that we do not sit idly by while we cross our fingers and hope that the regime falls, and like he says, even if it does, it make take “a really long time”, causing the casualty count to climb in the process.

An additional consideration that I’m surprised has not surfaced among more politicians (in particular, among Republicans) is that of long term strategic advantage for the United States after the dust settles and the power shifts in Syria. Of course, there is the very real possibility that the ideal will not come to fruition, at least not as seamlessly as we can hope, but as Senator McCain said, we don’t even have a chance if we don’t intervene—and we really can’t afford not to. Put simply, Syria has oil. If we are friendly with the new regime, and the people see us as allies, this will be an important resource for the United States. In addition, Syria and Israel are not exactly friends. This assertion may seem overly optimistic, but if the United States has greater influence in a new Syria, perhaps our country can exercise diplomatic influence in the Middle East, especially between Syria and Israel, which might have an impact on such nations as Egypt to change their attitudes toward Israel. Of course, there is the obvious benefit of challenging Iranian influence in the region. Republicans seem to hate Iran—a hatred befitting the regime, perhaps, but too often directed in a misguided way toward the Iranian people. Perhaps the American relationship with Iran could also become a more positive one as the key Iranian ally of Syria becomes an American ally. NATO would be strengthened, and the role of Turkey would be a robust one. This is also in the interest of the United States. Finally, a multilateral military intervention in Syria would aid in ushering in the new era of 21^st century international cooperation. It would prove that the intervention in Libya wasn’t just a fluke, that even if the countries of the United Nations cannot agree to act in favor the moral high ground, other institutions exist that will promote the ideals of security, stability, democracy, and human rights—that international law is not dead, and that bloodthirsty leaders desperate to cling to power cannot act with impunity.

The 20^th century was the century of decolonization. It began with the fall of empires after World War I, and ended with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the final decade of the century. The 21^st century has dawned with the fight for human rights for the people in many of those countries in which such rights have not been granted. We should not let the legacy of the Arab Spring falter in Syria.

Now, after that inspiring rhetoric, I want to contrast this movement with that of the #stopkony and Joseph Kony 2012 movements. For the last two days, Twitter has been inundated with trending topics referencing the warlord Joseph Kony. This movement has spread to Facebook and other social media and aggregate sites. Many people have linked to a video about Joseph Kony on the YouTube page of Invisible Children, a nonprofit organization who launched the campaign against Kony. The stated aims are to find Joseph Kony somewhere in Uganda or central Africa—it’s not quite clear since no one knows where he is at the moment—and bring him to justice. This is a worthwhile aim, but the Invisible Children campaign is not necessarily the right tool to use to do so.

Invisible Children mainly raises awareness. This is fantastic, but does not solve the problem. Millions of young Americans can tweet all they want, but how many actually understand the complexities of child armies in Africa? How many have even heard of the L.R.A? And how many have done any research into Invisible Children, except to watch the half hour promotional video put out by the group? As the sites I will link to explain, Invisible Children supports another Ugandan group that also uses child soldiers, that rapes and loots, and engages in unspeakable horrors in much the same way that Kony’s groups have. Invisible Children feels that this group is the best tool to find Kony. What kind of message does this send? That evil can fight evil? An eye for an eye? This kind of military action is very dangerous, and as one of the sources explains, retaliatory action has been taken when American forces have intervened militarily, and anything involving child soldiers is “messy”. Another fear is the racial and cultural element in that many people don’t understand the plight of rural Africans. This is not to say intervention is never necessary or that Joseph Kony should not be made infamous. As I stated before, the Rwandan genocide is a classic case in which military intervention in Africa was necessary and should have been undertaken.

Sources Skeptical of Invisible Children:

http://visiblechildren.tumblr.com.nyud.net/

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/conserving-freedom/2012/mar/7/kony-2012-bringing-joseph-kony-justice/

Invisible Children has many questionable practices, but has been made famous by bands such as Fall Out Boy in previous years and has now spread due to social media. I think that most people who spread the message are pure of heart and many want to be part of a larger movement to feel like they are making a difference in the world. This is commendable, though, Invisible Children and the entire Kony movement may not be the best way to go about solving the problem. The lesson that should be taken from this movement is that now that people are informed, brainstorming about a better way to end the kidnapping, rape, torture, and murder of children, as well as other members of African communities, can begin. Some people, it seems, just want to jump on the bandwagon and get involved in the latest trend. As one source said, sometimes doing nothing actually is better than doing something, if that something breeds more destruction.

Why is it that Syria has not garnered the same fevered attention as the Joseph Kony movement? There may be several reasons for this. There is a clear plan of action that can be taken in Syria, right now, with the aid of other countries within a reliable framework. The same cannot be said for the search for Kony in Africa. I urge humanitarian aid in Syria and a closer look at the Invisible Children-sponsored movement. Invisible Children has become very visible, while the idea of intervention in Syria has been nearly invisible.

Imagine…

Tags

99%, aid, America, Chiba, cold war, compassion, democrat, economics, Election, election 2012, foreign aid, history, humanism, humanitarian intervention, imperialism, international, Libya, military, money, national, obama, paul, PNAC, politics, president, progressive, Project for a New American Century, republican, romney, Ron Paul, Russia, south carolina, Syria, UN, united states, war, world

What an incredible miscalculation on the part of the PNAC to assume that a strong United States would be forged from preemptive military strikes, and that military might is the main component for sustained world power in the 21st century. Perhaps the PNAC was working off of the mythology that a strong military built up the United States in the 20th century; however, it was not primarily military power, but economic power, that fueled–and then cemented–the position of the United States as a world power. From overtaking Britain and Germany in manufacturing at the turn of the 20th century to the birth of the mass production industry with Ford and his ilk through World War II, the all-important Marshall Plan, Bretton Woods, and post-war developments through the Cold War and the technological miracle of the end of the century, economics has been the main component of American success. In an increasingly Internet-based world where the word “innovation” is thrown around almost as often as the pejorative “Obamacare”, it is imperative that the US remain an engine of economic growth. The financial crisis has created a climate in which depressing statistic after depressing statistic is ubiquitous and a feeling of hopelessness pervasive.

What is especially frightening is the theme among many Republicans that a supersized military and preemptive strikes against Iran are not to be questioned. According to this view, no “patriotic American” would want to risk the country’s safety and security in such a dangerous world. Never mind that this mentality is akin to a wrecking ball. Ron Paul, the sole dissenter of this view, in the remaining field of Republican presidential contenders, claims that the Russian foray into Afghanistan bankrupted the Soviet Union and helped lead to the USSR’s demise. What he fails to mention, however, is the amount of money Russia spent on excessive military technology and the unsustainable empire it built in an age when colonialism was dying out everywhere else in the world. At this time, the US could better afford to engage in an arms race with the Soviet Union.

If our country is to live up to its credo of “the shining city upon a hill”–another phrase seemingly every Republican contender has invoked since the beginning of the race–then our strategy should be to take meaningful steps to mitigate humanitarian crises around the world. We can start with Syria. Libya provided a good example of how lives can be saved when the world intervenes. The no-fly zone proved indispensable to the Libyan rebels. Now, when Syrian rebels are calling for a no-fly zone, stricter UN action, and a credible set of observers, the US should take these pleas seriously. Without Russian and Chinese support, the UN Security Council is rendered impotent. Does that mean the US should do nothing more than what it already has? No, it doesn’t.

Unfortunately, probably very little will be done in Syria or anywhere else in the next year because it’s a presidential election year. When President Obama is criticized on every aspect of his foreign policy in repeated right wing talking points (even though Obama has been “strong” on most foreign policy initiatives), it is highly unlikely that the White House will do much anywhere else. And the Congress? Congress can’t even pass the simplest of routine domestic bills.

It is disingenuous and dangerous for Republicans to talk about “living within our means”, spending cuts, not nurturing a “dependency society”, and promising things like “bringing foreign aid down to zero”, when the same people will not provide direct assistance to the citizens suffering at home and insist on growing military and all kinds of national security expenditures. The Project for a New American Century model has failed, and has helped bankrupt the United States, aiding in the depletion of one of our country’s greatest assets: our economic success. And this money is not a vague, detached concept. It is due to the hard work and cooperation of generations of Americans, the same people Republicans would like to bleed while insisting on tax cuts for the wealthiest and building up, as Romney terms it, “a military so strong that no one will think to mess with us” (or some rhetoric to that effect). This is all proudly proclaimed and echoed by others not on the stages at debates while claiming that people in genuine need of help–whether that be around the world–or in their own backyards, are not “our problem” and these people (who include the vast majority of American citizens) should take care of themselves.

The United States can adapt right now, and need not succumb to naysayers’ insistence that the golden age of America is over. At the same time, spending exorbitant amounts of money on an aggressive foreign policy and unchecked defense spending while not taking care of US citizens is not a viable–or ethical–path forward. If for no other reason, voting for a Republican for president (and, yes, that includes Ron Paul, who lives in a fantasy world where everyone takes care of the sick by collecting money at church, never mind the fact that not everyone goes to church and even fewer people are either that giving or have the means to care for their neighbors), is an irresponsible and ignorant decision. Imagine a better world.