As the day draws to an end, I finally got around to reading Vladimir Putin's remarks in the New York Times. As you already know, I do not agree with sending missiles to Syria in order to make a statement, or refute a 'line that was crossed'. I think that sending a missile without setting, as a goal, the removal of the person, or person's, that ordered the release of chemical weapons is a waste of time and effort.
In my view, war results from the failure of diplomacy. Of course, I've always been a believer that war is caused by the 3 - R's...revenge, religion, and resources. I believe I learned this in some college class that I took during my years in the Army; I never did see or learn anything to make me disbelieve it. If I take my belief that the 3-R's cause war, then my other belief about diplomacy seems invalid - for diplomacy does not seek another countries resources for our own use; nor has diplomacy ever resulted in one religion not seeking to destroy another. Perhaps in revenge diplomacy would have a chance to prevail, yet the circumstances that warrant war as a extension of revenge do not normally allow for the option of diplomacy.
In the Syrian Civil War there seems to be aspects of revenge, religion, and certainly resources at work. Why then would one seek a diplomatic solution? I think it was Einstein that stated, "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result" Certainly we don't think that pursuing a diplomatic line as a solution to bringing Syria's chemical weapons under international control is insanity? How could we when we still do not have valid (my view of valid) proof of who exactly ordered the usage of those weapons. I know that the media, in it's reporting of various political happenings has alluded to such 'proof', yet I do not believe that a single American has actually heard or viewed this proof yet. Call me skeptical, if you will, but I think we need something exceptionally concrete before we start a discourse on the taking of another person's life - which is certainly what we are discussing when ordering a cruise missile strike. It appears that even if we knew, definitively, that Assad was responsible - he was not going to be the intended target. I hope this doesn't sound like a 'new' piece of the puzzle to anyone reading this, because it has been vocalized since this thing started. Removal of the 'head of state' was not the goal of any cruise missile strikes, planned or ordered. We don't do that.
So what was our intention then; we were going to strike to reduce the effectiveness of Assad's armed forces. That would send the message to Assad that we weren't kidding when we said that a 'line was drawn in the sand'. It may even result in the opposition gaining the upper-hand. One need not listen to the Russian President who writes that, "there are few champions of democracy" at work in Syria to understand that this is not a matter of the democratic front battling the tyrannical government for the rights of it's citizens. This is a matter of a multitude of groups, religious and otherwise, battling for control of turf and the people who live on that turf. This is not just a battle of 'them' against the 'government' this is a battle of 'them against them' and 'them against us' and finally 'them against the established government'. Now apparently we don't like the Assad government, we feel that he is evil and should relinquish control of Syria for the good of all his people; yet, even feeling this way we will not remove him with a missile strike as retribution for usage of chemical weapons against his own population. It's kind of starting to sound nonsensical to me.
I titled this blog post, and started it with reference to reading the NYT's editorial today because of the point I'm feeling conflicted about. While Mr. Putin makes sensible comments throughout, we can not escape that uneasy feeling that 'this is about something bigger'....but, must it always be about some greater attempt to gain ground? I guess when it's between our two countries it must. When it's between the left and the right, the liberals and the conservatives, and doves and the hawks, the have's and the have not's...it always must be about gaining valuable ground - gathering those resources for ourselves, gathering up the souls of the lost flock, reaping revenge for previous ill's - real or perceived.
What does make America exceptional? What makes us that 'shining city on a hill', as President Reagan put it.
What makes America Exceptional is that I can write this and post it for others to see. What makes America Exceptional is that other's can dispute, agree with, or ignore what I've stated here. What makes America Exceptional is that we can have this dialog, in our political system, about whether a missile strike is justified or warranted - and parties from all sides can voice their viewpoint and be heard - if even only for a moment. But they were heard, all sides, and care was taken to listen.
Has the President lost credibility on the international or national stage because he allowed diplomacy a chance; because he welcomes - cautiously - Russian intervention. Do we think that, after almost 5 years of serving as the Leader of this country, that he is still so naïve that he doesn't enter this option without misgivings. Do we really think that ALL the people who surround the President, who guide and advise the President, are all that naïve so as not too raise hands and look hard at potential outcomes and consequences as we move down this pathway? Is this not a government that is designed to work together, under difficult situations, to seek solutions to hard problems while ensuring the security and prosperity of the nation ? Are there not 540 elected officials in the Congress who we sent there to do this job? (435 voting and 5 non-voting members in the House and 100 members in the Senate).
As I stated in my last post, it's time to get back to work on home issues, however -
What really makes America Exceptional is that we even care.
No comments:
Post a Comment