War
drums are beating again in Washington. This time Syria is in the
crosshairs after a massacre there last week left more than 100 dead.
As might be expected from an administration with an announced policy
of "regime change" in Syria, the reaction was to blame
only the Syrian government for the tragedy, expel Syrian diplomats
from Washington, and announce that the US may attack Syria even
without UN approval. Of course, the idea that the administration
should follow the Constitution and seek a Declaration of War from
Congress is considered even more anachronistic now than under the
previous administration.
It may be the
case that the Syrian military was responsible for the events last
week, but recent bombings and attacks have been carried out by armed
rebels with reported al-Qaeda ties. With the stakes so high, it
would make sense to wait for a full investigation – unless the
truth is less important than stirring up emotions in favor of a
US attack.
There is ample
reason to be skeptical about US government claims amplified in mainstream
media reports. How many times recently have lies and exaggerations
been used to push for the use of force overseas? It was not long
ago that we were told Gaddafi was planning genocide for the people
of Libya, and the only way to stop it was a US attack. Those claims
turned out to be false, but by then the US and NATO had already
bombed Libya, destroying its infrastructure, killing untold numbers
of civilians, and leaving a gang of violent thugs in charge.
Likewise, we
were told numerous falsehoods to increase popular support for the
2003 war on Iraq, including salacious stories of trans-Atlantic
drones and WMDs. Advocates of war did not understand the complexities
of Iraqi society, including its tribal and religious differences.
As a result, Iraq today is a chaotic mess, with its ancient Christian
population eliminated and the economy set back decades. An unnecessary
war brought about by lies and manipulation never ends well.
Earlier still,
we were told lies about genocide and massacres in Kosovo to pave
the way for President Clinton's bombing campaign against Yugoslavia.
More than 12 years later, that region is every bit as unstable and
dangerous as before the US intervention – and American troops
are still there.
The
story about the Syrian massacre keeps changing, which should raise
suspicions. First, we were told that the killings were caused by
government shelling, but then it was discovered that most were killed
at close range with handgun fire and knives. No one has explained
why government forces would take the time to go house to house binding
the hands of the victims before shooting them, and then retreat
to allow the rebels in to record the gruesome details. No one wants
to ask or answer the disturbing questions, but it would be wise
to ask ourselves who benefits from these stories.
We have seen
media reports over the past several weeks that the Obama administration
is providing direct "non-lethal" assistance to the rebels
in Syria while facilitating the transfer of weapons from other Gulf
States. This semi-covert assistance to rebels we don't know much
about threatens to become overt intervention. Last week Gen. Martin
Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said about Syria,
"I think the military option should be considered." And
here all along I thought it was up to Congress to decide when we
go to war, not the generals.
We are on a
fast track to war against Syria. It is time to put on the brakes.
No comments:
Post a Comment