The President

A central element of Obama’s argument for targeted military action against the Assad regime, is that NOT to act would lead other rogue states (see: Iran) to calculate that they can use weapons of mass destruction (WMD) with impunity. Our national interest, according to the president, would be compromised by any action short of using deadly force, in response to Assad’s decision to deploy sarin gas on August 21st.

Because I am not a pacifist, and because I view international politics as largely (though not totally) anarchic, I find the above strategic calculation to be the strongest part of the president’s argument. That he is willing to wait on using deadly force, and see whether Assad will agree to place his chemical weapons under international control, is also pragmatic statecraft.

Where Obama overreaches– and where we should always be suspicious of anyone who wields great earthly power– is the moral argument. As an emotional appeal for our support of military action, several times he mentions the suffering of innocent Syrian children poisoned in the sarin attacks. Yes, this suffering is outrageous and obscene. But when we respond with a “targeted military strike” with the intent to “deter Assad” and “degrade his regime’s ability” to use chemical weapons, is there anyone who thinks that no innocent person will be killed? And so then: what kind of morality is it, exactly, that accepts the suffering of innocents, to pay for the suffering of innocents?

We Americans would do less harm in the world if we repented the self-flattering self-deception that the violence we use is redemptive: that, because our aims are righteous, our violence is somehow cleaner.  It is one thing for a state to have just cause for war; it is false to then claim, therefore, that your just cause means you are acting morally. In the Christian moral universe, everyone is a beloved child of God. Everyone.

In the rhetoric of persuasion, appealing to your audience’s emotions is page one in the playbook– so we know why Obama mentioned the suffering innocent Syrian children so many times. As an argument, though, it is weak. If bombing Damascus ends up being our policy, let’s do away with pious posturing, and name it for what it is: we’re bombing you because we believe doing so is in our national interest.

Statecraft is statecraft. It’s about power– blunt and brutal power: power that does not discriminate between the bad and the good, the blameworthy and the blameless.

via FULL TRANSCRIPT: President Obama’s Sept. 10 speech on Syria – The Washington Post.


One thought on “Syria

  1. Fine, Chris. I accept your argument as far as it goes. But aren’t we commanded to transcend violence, the use of what power we may wield for this moment in time, to compel – or try to compel – others to bend to our will? If a man “smite thee on thy right cheek,” aren’t you to offer him the left, and not send tomahawk cruise missiles in to kill him and numerous innocent bystanders to preserve what we perceive as our “interests”? Must the basis of government – even the limited government of the American vision, nominally created only to promote and preserve human liberty – be compulsion, and force? Or may we state a different principle upon which we govern ourselves and project our strength to the world? Say, for example, sacrifice – making the mundane sacred – forgoing violence and compulsion for the good of those around us, or who may come after us.

    To put it in practical terms, you and I, with wives and children to protect and provide for, might have to settle for watching from the sidelines. But couldn’t legions of bachelors and grandfathers who have discharged their worldly duties buy one-way tickets to Syria, disembark, and stand in the way of the troops – Assad’s and the “rebels” – and say, ” over my dead body.” Even the United States Marines – their M-16s little protection against sarin gas – could be sent in to say, in essence, “if you would kill the innocent to achieve your aims, you must first kill us.” What saddens and disappoints, at least as much as the readiness to resort to violent compulsion, is the fallacy that we can and should achieve peace without sacrifice – a neat technological fix, like the latest smartphone app (when you can tax the whole nation, a few billion dollars in weaponry doesn’t hurt much more than the $0.99 app download).

    Why shouldn’t the government of the people conform to the commandments which apply to the people themselves? Why shouldn’t we aspire to such a government?

    “How many deaths of other people’s children by bombing or starvation are we willing to accept in order that we may be free, affluent, and (supposedly) at peace? To that question I answer: None. Please, no children. Don’t kill any children for my benefit.” — Wendell Berry

    — A Friend

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s