I had planned to write a "third departure," outlining for myself what I meant by secular rationalism (as opposed to religious authoritarianism) but let me take a slight detour before I come back to the main road. I have argued in the past that the so-called "war on terror" has come to displace the "war on communism." At some level, this was calculated, and the reason for the substitution was perhaps two-fold. If the cold war on communism was designed "to mobilize public opinion against the soviet union," as Ellis put it, the war on terror was a pretext to mobilize public opinion against the fundamentalist religious movements that threatened stability within the middle east. With the "National Security Memorandum 68 in 1950," the United States had already "committed itself to a massive military establishment to fight the cold war," and the end of the cold war provided, at least initially, an opportunity to scale back and consider the domestic issues. It was, in other words, a perfect opportunity to step back into a more Jeffersonian idea of America. For Jefferson, any military buildup, much less the massive "army (and navy and air force)" of the cold war, represented a clear threat to the liberty of the people and "individual sovereignty." A standing army provided the means whereby a tyrant could enforce his tyranny, and of course his warnings have been borne out time and again in modern history, most recently with the brutal regime of Bassar al Assad. In this respect, at least, Trump represented a more "pure republicanism" than the vast majority of his republican party. Although Bannon seems to have lost some favor, his principled dismantling of the "administrative state," which intrudes daily into our lives, and Trump's tweeted warnings to avoid entanglement in foreign wars, which waste treasure that could be better spent at home, not to mention American lives, would, one imagines, have found some favor with Jefferson. Likewise, Rex Tillerson's earlier announcement that it was "up to the people of Syria" whether Assad remained in power represented a more "pure republicanism" than the core of his party who have long favored a more bellicose stance. Jefferson clearly was not a pacifist, but the only real justification for armed action was a last resort resistance to tyranny, and he would have applauded, one imagines, the rebels' armed resistance to the Assad regime just as he had encouraged our own and the French revolutions.
Having said this, I have, of course, traced a path of ideological consistency through the blustering chaos of Trump and his administration. The world, ultimately, is too complex to allow for any sort of ideological consistency, and so it's not surprising that "for a man who had campaigned on an “America First” platform of avoiding entanglements in overseas conflicts and who repeatedly warned his predecessor, Barack Obama, against military action in Syria, Mr. Trump made a breathtaking turnaround in the space of 63 hours after the chemical attack" launched by Assad on his own people. As the Times editorialized, "It was hard not to feel some sense of emotional satisfaction, and justice done, when American cruise missiles struck an airfield in Syria on Thursday," though I am left a bit unsettled as well. As the Times points out, there are ironies. Trump has undertaken precisely the sort of unilateral action that the GOP decried when Obama attempted it. "The action lacked authorization from Congress and the United Nations Security Council," as the Times reports, "raising questions about its legality" which in turn spotlights "a rich irony." In 2013, "Mr. Trump argued that Mr. Obama must get congressional approval before attacking Syria" and a GOP dominated "Congress, with a long history of ducking its war-making responsibility, refused to give it." Then too, there are questions. "So far," the Times again points out, "there is no evidence that Mr. Trump has thought through the implications of using military force or figured out what to do next." He could, of course, use his standard evasion -- that to discuss his future actions with congress, the security council, or especially the press would eliminate the element of surprise -- but surprise is tactical, not strategic. One wouldn't expect Trump to give away tactical advantage, but the strategic question -- what did we intend to accomplish with this act? -- can and should be discussed broadly in an open society.
My misgiving goes deeper. One can give Trump some credit for having dug deep and found some level of human compassion after seeing the televised images of children struggling to breath, but really? That seems to suggest that he should praised for demonstrating the emotional intelligence of a five year old, when adults, capable of a modicum of abstract thought, have "to wonder why he was not similarly moved by the 400,000 Syrians who have died since the war broke out in 2011," as the Times suggests, "or by the thousands of Syrian refugees he has barred from the United States." So far, there is no evidence either that the missile strike signals a change in the humanitarian posture of the US, and to the best of my knowledge the Trump administration continues to press forward its "not-a-muslim" ban in the courts. Moreover, one can Trump some credit for having flexed US muscle and acted. The claim might be that "Militarily, this was a measured response that severely damaged Syrian aircraft and infrastructure at Al Shayrat airfield." One could also claim that "it may help persuade Mr. Assad (and other problematic leaders, like those in North Korea) that using weapons of mass destruction will not go unpunished," but really? So far, there is no evidence either that the missile strike will prompt a change in the behavior of the Assad regime, particularly toward its own people. When has a "measured response" done anything but increase resolve? In the meantime, as the Times reports, "Mr. Assad still has his chemical weapons, and the civil war endures."
My misgiving goes even deeper. There is something altogether too convenient, too "wag the dog" about this particular action. The Times hints at it when they suggest that, "whether by design or not, the American military action has also shifted the focus from the scandal over Russia's interference in the election on Mr. Trump’s behalf and allegations that the president and his allies may have colluded with Moscow." Whether "by design?" While I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories, and I'm waiting on the evidence that connects the dots, I wouldn't discount a smarmy collusion with the Russians. "Hoping to avoid a military confrontation, Washington alerted the Russians in advance of the airstrikes," and so far, there is no evidence that the air strike caused any damage to the Russian presence in Syria, which is both a normal thing and a good thing and something all past president's would do. We wouldn't, after all, want the situation to escalate into a war with Russia. Almost on cue, "President Vladimir Putin’s office called the strikes a “significant blow” to Russian-American relations," and subsequently "suspended an agreement meant to prevent accidental clashes and threatened to reinforce Syrian air defenses." Unless the US actually confronts the Russian support of Assad, however, there is something "wink-wink" about the Russian response. Although again, I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories, and I would wait on the evidence, still, it wouldn't surprise me, not in the least, to learn that the gas attack, the airstrike in response, and the Russian outrage were all designed as a distraction from the focus on Russian election hacking that has dominated early news of the Trump administration. One can hope not, but as O'Donnell points out, with the sudden shift in "policy" relative to Syria and it's regime, and almost every one of his previous policy pronouncements, Trump has created a "fact-free" zone around his presidency where it's possible to believe almost anything, even the unbelievable. It's not beyond Putin to allow the Assad regime to keep its sarin, despite assurances to the contrary, and its not beyond Putin to authorize use of that gas against the Syrian rebels. I can all too easily picture Putin slapping Tillerson on the back, as he meets with the Russians next week, asking "how'd that work for you?" And as I write this, ABC news is reporting that the airfield is in operation, raising the question, what's next? I suspect more bellicose posturing that changes nothing.
No comments:
Post a Comment