Uneasy Lies the Head

I once wrote an article about the supposed “red line” issued by President Obama over the usage of chemical weapons in Syria and the president’s lack of action.  I worried then and still do now that the lack of action sent the wrong message.  Whether action should be taken or not is no longer the question for the president has already committed us to action.  The question is, when, where and how should that action now proceed?  Once more, the Syrian government has unleashed an even heavier and deadlier attack of Sarin gas.  President Bashar al-Assad jabbed the sleeping giant and it growled and snarled but ultimately, went back to sleep.  Now, he has done it again and if we do not respond, it could have catastrophic effects.   

As the Syrian conflict first erupted a couple of years ago, the president suggested, as we tangled ourselves in Libya, that we had no interest in the conflict and would not join or assist in the fight.  Some observers wondered why Libya and not Syria but the Americans were in agreement – we had our fill of getting involved in the internal conflicts of Middle Eastern countries.  Then, there was intelligence that suggested Mr. Assad could use chemical weapons against those who opposed his government.  The U.S., along with Israel, declared chemical weapons to be a Rubicon that could not be crossed without a response.  Syria did and the U.S. decided that their “red line” was not as definite has had been suggested.  Recently, Mr. Obama suggested the “red line” was still in place and he would not tolerate the usage of chemical weapons.  Syria did and the president has taken an interesting stance. 

Earlier this past week, it seemed as if the U.S. was on the precipice of committing military action in Syria against the Assad regime and its chemical capabilities.  The president mentioned imminent action in an interview; the Secretary of State John Kerry delivered an impassioned case for the need to do something now.  The White House press secretary also suggested that the president had the power to do something now.  However, in the last twenty-four hours, the president and his administration have taken a different tone.  Now, the president declares that he will wait until the Congress is back in session (about a week from now) and communicate and work with them to get congressional input.     

There are a couple of things that I should add as a caveat.  One, the president is in possession of intelligence that no one else knows which might explain his actions or lack thereof.  Yet, as I said before, it begs the question of why the president has come out so strongly against Syria if evidence or intelligence would suggest a murkier picture.  Second, the Congress has been harping, rightfully so, that it needs to recapture some of its authority as it relates to the president’s power.  However, this is not the time to appeal to Congress and help them regain their authority if the situation requires more immediate action.  Lastly, the president is on the verge of emboldening forces that are carefully watching his actions – Mr. Assad, Hezbollah (the Shi’a extremists who operate in Syria and Lebanon) and Iran.  They are all watching things carefully and determining what to do next. 

Again, no one outside the White House has the complete picture yet, what can been seen is the impact of the decisions being made by the administration.  The president needs to know that off-the-cuff remarks and the need to say something at every turn has created some unnecessary quagmires.  At this point, the U.S. needs to follow an acta non verba policy and in the future, the administration needs to be more discipline regarding what they say about foreign issues.  It is not helping the administration and it certainly is not helping the United States.

When a Red Line Isn’t

Il nous faut de l’audace, et encore de l’audace, et toujours de l’audace (We must have audacity, and again audacity, and every day audacity).
            Georges Danton, French revolutionary

Earlier this year, President Obama spoke with uncharacteristic frankness and unequivocally laid out the nature of possible American involvement in Syria.  Meanwhile, the world watched.  Would the Syrians be so daring as to unleash chemical weapons with such an explicit threat laid down by the president of the United States?  Meanwhile, Israel laid out its own red line, along the same criterion as the president.  Should the Syrian government use chemical weapons on its own people, it would respond.  Both the U.S. and Israel declared a “red line” drawn and should it be crossed, it promised military action.  The response has been telling. 

By April of this year, stories leaked that the besieged Syrian government had possibly done just that.  Once there was sufficient evidence of the chemical attack, President Obama equivocated by suggesting that his “red line” was not analogous to military action.  Israel, upon its “red line” being crossed, sent jets into Syria and bombed some of its research facilities for chemical weapons.  As Geddy Lee of the band Rush once said, “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.”  Both say something revealing.  From an international perspective, which lies beyond the partisan posturing within which American politicians often wallow, the message is that Israel is decisive and to be taken seriously and the U.S. is not. 

Throughout U.S. history, there have been warnings that stem from dithering presidents – Franklin Roosevelt in Spain, John F. Kennedy in Cuba, Jimmy Carter in Iran, to name a few.  Therefore, President Obama finds himself at a crossroads that demand action.  The rhetorical gymnastics the Obama administration has done in explaining its inaction to the American press and public is not perceived the same way to international brutes and savages.  Bashar al-Assad and his government, while beleaguered on many levels by rebels, fundamentalists and now Israel, is not concerned with the United States. 

What does this mean for the United States?  If we proclaim to hold some sort of international mandate and authority to act in defense of the defenseless around the world, we must first put ourselves in a position to be taken seriously.  The more we fail to act on our principles, the more decayed we become.  The more we concern ourselves with the perception of our country and our goals, the more we will miss opportunities to do something right. 

Some might perceive an action by the Americans as threatening a widening of the conflict but I believe that to be entirely in the hands of the Assad regime.  Take the Israeli action for example.  What can Syria do?  They have suggested, as reported by al-Jazeera, that the Israeli military is in cahoots with Islamic fundamentalists but I can’t imagine there will be much traction from such an accusation.  They cannot fire upon the Israeli military or into Israel for fear of widening the conflict.  They cannot handle the rebels in their own country, much less the most sophisticated military force in the Middle East.   

It is quite possible that there is intelligence that is preventing the president from acting as he said he would months ago.  Unfortunately, either the Obama administration erred when they set the red line or they erred in deciding not to uphold such an ultimatum.  Either way, the administration is in a dangerous spot.  The war-weary people of Syria needed help a long time ago but inaction then does not justify inaction now.  We must do the good work to help the ordinary Syrians before the Assad military regime completely obliterates them.  One might think we are hated now – how is the situation served better by refusing to help those in need?

The Gathering of Storm Clouds

There are a series of events that are transpiring that could quickly destabilize various regions around the world.  In the past, the United States played a large and influential role in settling situations and calming fears – allowing for “cooler heads to prevail.”  In the past, the United States displayed a leadership that could convince otherwise truculent world leaders to compromise or stand down.  Critics of American foreign policy denounced the overbearing and bullying democracy.  President Obama feels that the U.S. has inappropriately and insensitively projected itself on world affairs in the past and promised not to follow that same path.  Activists around the world applauded the declaration.  Yet, in the Middle East and the Far East, things are quickly deteriorating and it begs the question if a stronger president could not have stemmed the tide. 

A while back, I worried that Syria was turning into a Rwanda.  Today, the international community has allowed a government to butcher its own people on a massive scale.  In the absence of international action or leadership, organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood have moved in to help the rebels.  However, the bloodshed continues and the government remains unrepentant even as its structure crumbles around them.  A new envoy, Algerian diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi, now has the unenviable task of convincing a government who has ignored international pressure for over a year to put aside its aggression on its own people with little tangible outside help from the Americans and Europeans. 

To the southwest, Israeli leaders have given up hope of the international community rendering aid and are in the process of considering, if reports are to be believed, a strategic attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.  Israel has, unfortunately, needed to take this path before when it attacked and destroyed Iraq’s nascent nuclear reactor in 1981.  Recent reports on Iran’s nuclear capabilities suggest it is further along than anyone thought.  Not only does such developments threaten Israel but it is reasonable to suggest that predominantly Sunni Muslim countries are also at risk – not to mention western Europe and other U.S. allies.  While many international activists chastise Israel and despair of its “militaristic” tendencies, Israel might be forced to do what years of diplomacy have failed to accomplish. 

On a group of Japanese controlled islands, a bit of opera is playing out between the Japanese government and activists from China. The Senkaku islands are the center of a debate as to who controls the area. When the Japanese Coast Guard detained and questioned the activists, Beijing issued a strong condemnation as anti-Japanese protests erupted through the country. At stake for these islands south of Okinawa and just north of Taiwan are a litany of gas fields and a heavily traveled commercial shipping lane. China declares ancient rights to the islands but Japan has controlled them since the late 1800s.  To what extent China would be willing to fight over the islands is uncertain but two obdurate, tradition-rich and stubborn countries at odds is a point of concern.  Unfortunately, no one outside the region seems to notice.
 
Any one of these incidents can, by themselves, create the kind of foreign policy headache that risks the lives of tens of thousands. A strong and influential hand has traditionally been sought out from the United States but at present, it appears to be absent. As time goes by, the European Union grows increasingly pre-occupied with holding its economic structure in place. The Arab League has proven, to date, to be as ineffective and toothless as the organization it was patterned after – the United Nations. The world community releases one paper condemnation and outrage after another but things continue to deteriorate.

The president is pre-occupied by the coming election as any president would but Mr. Obama also needs to understand that he cannot focus solely on November. The boldness he displayed in ending the Osama bin Laden threat is required once more but he seems reluctant to enter the fray. If this is what we can expect from the president with an additional four years, perhaps we should take a longer look at Mr. Romney. Sadly though, if talk is to be believed, some of the situations could collapse long before the November election.

No Need for Gog and Magog

I’m beginning to question the usefulness and legitimacy of the United Nations. While one UN report after another speaks to the rise in violence in Syria and its direct correlation with the inactivity of the international organization, the Security Council remains deadlocked thanks to the perpetual and illogical obdurateness of the Russians and the Chinese. Yesterday, the UN called for an end to the violence but in real terms, the condemnation is meaningless. Meanwhile, Middle East “experts” suggest the world community should do nothing overt. On Fareed Zakaria’s GPS program on CNN, regional expert Fawaz Gerges suggested that any arming of the citizens or outside military action could result in a civil war. What exists now as the regime fires its weapons upon its own people?

From an American perspective, President Obama’s condemnation of the Syrian regime is infrequent and ultimately, toothless. The president has shown his reluctance to engage directly where matters of resistance are at play. The Syrian government is likely uninterested in President Obama’s rhetoric as it has not presented a threat in the past. In Egypt, the president’s words were not what removed Mr. Mubarak but rather the persistent efforts of the Egyptian protestors. In Libya, it was not the president’s words that removed the long-time dictator but NATO and again, persistent rebel activity. Mr. Obama’s words did not change the governments in Tunisia or Yemen and it does nothing to the (so far) fledgling uprisings and concerns of the Iranians or the Bahrainians. Mr. Gerges suggested that the Assad regime is under pressure on multiple levels. At the moment, it does not show.

The president and his representatives need to force the issue in the United Nations. We should be attempting to move that archaic and reticent organization into action. In the 1960s, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Adlai Stevenson, forced the issue with the Russians over nuclear missiles in Cuba. The former Illinois governor pressured, cornered and embarrassed the Soviet ambassador until he was forced to concede. This is what the United States, in conjunction with the Arab League, should be doing at the United Nations. The Arab League, an organization made up of largely Sunni states, has no love for the notion of the Assad regime with backing from the Iranians. There are enough states throughout the world outraged over the events in Syria that such pressure upon the Syrians, not to mention their perpetual protectors, the Russians and Chinese, should force the issue.

In an earlier blog about a month ago, I worried about the unchecked nature of the Iranians and the need to work with Arab states to do just that. The Iranians are no doubt playing a part in the current crisis within their satellite state, Syria. Yet, the United States have vacated their responsibilities internationally and have left many of its allies and those in peril to the risk and hopes of others. This is a chance to reassert our principles and stand by them. Whether it is through action in the United Nations or an embargo (as suggested by many commentators) or even finding some way to assist the populace, we must abandon our peripheral stance and show the courage and leadership from which millions of people over the last century have benefitted. We are dangerously close to repeating our moral failings in Rwanda. Jews often say, with reference to the Holocaust, “never again.” Well, it happened again in east Africa and now, it’s on the verge of happening in Syria.

Has the Arab Spring Sprung? Don’t Tell the Syrians

Over the last couple of weeks, there have been articles and analysis on the waning of the Arab Spring. The feeling among the writers is that those who succeeded are disenchanted with the results or the results have been hijacked by other elements. Of those who have not succeeded, the feeling, according to the writers, is that without outside help, their particular dictators will not acquiesce. I believe that history has shown that revolutions have ebbs and flows like any movement or campaign. However, there is one place where the Arab Spring is as turbulent and contentious as ever – in the country of Syria.

Over the last couple of months, the Syrian government, under the leadership (?) of President Bashar Assad, has been picking off its own citizens while declaring them at various times as either Israeli insurgents, Israeli-supported insurgents, gangsters or Muslim extremists. The Syrian government has tried all of these labels in hopes that something would resonate with those yet to protest to support the government. The Israeli story was concocted in hopes of diverting its population’s attention from the actions of their government. To date, not only has the uprising not abated but it has intensified, even into the formerly sacrosanct Damascus, the capital. In response, the Syrian government has initiated a near all-out assault on these “gangsters” or “extremists,” particularly in the city of Hama. An Economist article quoted one diplomat, upon seeing the chaos and the drummed up, government-mandated support for the regime, muttering about, “the last days of the Raj” (www.economist.com/node/21524855 - “Syria’s Turmoil: Reaching the Capital”). The Syrian people are not aware of a wane in the Arab Spring. They have ascended, has Henry V said, “once more into the breach.”

President Obama has not commented on the uprising or the uptick in violence perpetrated by the Syrian government on its own people. Granted, the president has been knee-deep in talks about the debt ceiling but he also needs to focus on the rest of his multifarious job. It is not easy being the president and President Obama has his hands full but it seems, he does not understand one component of his job. As the sole world power and the most powerful democracy in the world, it seems peculiar that the U.S. would be silent as people struggle and die for the right to have a say in their government.

Compounding the odd silence from the White House is likely the idea that many Syrians are not depending upon the U.S. While some may see that as a positive sign, in fact, it is quite troubling. Throughout our history, we have sided with the underdogs. We’ve not always come out on the right side of things or done the right thing. On balance, however, the U.S. has sought the greater good for others. It no longer appears to be true. In the last two years, we have seemed reluctant to enter the fray, even diplomatically. The administration was nearly silent as Iran gunned down its own citizens, remained on the sidelines for far too long in Egypt, “lead from behind” in Libya and outside the occasional remarks from Secretary Clinton, Washington has been quite taciturn on the situation in Syria.

The U.S. is fearful of a Syria allied with Iran and so, they take a hands off approach. Yet, we could have a helpful and guiding hand in the situation in Syria. After the fall of the Soviet Union, the U.S. and other European democracies flooded Eastern Europe with consultants and experts on democratic elections and governance. The more we are out of touch and out of tune with the ordinary Syrians, the less role we will play in its reconstruction. If we don’t help, more nefarious powers might.