In February of 2011, a CIA informant by the codename "Curveball" (Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi) admit that he lied about his information to the German government declaring that there was mobile WMD production in Iraq. A curveball, indeed-- though that revelation might have had more impact about eight years prior. Although to be fair to the Germans (someone has to, now and then), their intelligence did warn that this was a man who was trying to game the system to improve his status for a green card.
Yes, second hand information from German intelligence, given to the United States and flagged for spuriousness, was used by Colin Powell in his address to the United Nations in the march towards the Iraq War. And why not? Donald Rumsfeld gave his opinion that the 9/11 attacks could be used as grounds for invasion of Iraq, before the information had been sifted and examined by cooler heads.
Why not blame him 9/11? This was a despot who flirted with the assassination of George Herbert Walker Bush. Assigning more deeds of villainy to the man does not violate his character. His son, Uday, was a notable psychopath who beat a man to death in front of then-President Mubarak at a dinner party. These are the types of people we were dealing with, and their misanthropy should not, could not be underestimated.
And there it is. The problem was that the shoe fit too well. Saddam Hussein has used chemical weapons on the Kurdish population before, had an active (although fruitless) nuclear program, and even explored biological weaponry in 1985. As time went on, United States intervention became inevitable, and yet inexplicably we left Saddam Hussein in power following the conflict; perhaps it was because the brain trust at the time saw the dangers of a power vacuum in the region. Hussein was left subject to UN weapons inspectors, the geopolitical equivalent of having Bill Lumbergh sticking his head in the country and making sure it was working on Sunday. Annoying for Saddam, but hardly an impediment to mischievous scheming.
The U.S. knew what Saddam was doing, all the way up to 1991 when the United States attacked. The H.W. Bush Administration even held out hope that there would be a coup to replace his leadership before intervention became necessary, as (more or less) happened in Libya to the Gaddafi regime many years later.
All of this historical backdrop may seem superfluous when discussing Syria and John Kerry's speech today, which delivered a case for intervention. He acknowledged the country's weariness with intervening in far corners of the globe, unsure what interests are there and what role our political, economic, and moral position requires of us.
But he also made an interesting point: the UN's mission statement declares that it is designed to only "inspect" for chemical weapons, and report whether they have been used. Impotent to do anything else, it falls on the United States' shoulders to carry out action. He also gave a laundry list of consenting countries, while conveniently failing to mention David Cameron or other critics. Cameron, I might add, is channeling a wee bit of Neville Chamberlain and a pinch Catholic schoolteacher, recommending our response to Syria be a "tsk tsk" and a few "For Shames!"
The preponderance of evidence is overwhelming, and the country finds itself much more in the position of 1991 than 2003. After all, do we not regret the stationary inertia of 1994, when Rwanda was experiencing genocide on a Holocaust scale? The United Nations was the stick in the mud, the fly in the ointment, the gum on the shoes then too. To this day, there are people who deny that the Jewish Holocaust ever happened; need we wait for them to be convinced before action is taken in Germany?
But speaking of flies in ointments-- is the United States in a position, after making such a debacle in Iraq for, as it turns out, faulty reasons? Removing Saddam Hussein was a positive result that came from poor evidence. Inversely, poor results can come from actions based upon good evidence. Should the country rattle its sabers so soon after sheathing them elsewhere?
This is the pickle that we have brined for ourselves. If we want to claim that our foreign policy is based in humanitarianism, in keeping a modest harmony between nations, then we have to act. That is the standard that we set. If we deem it wise to only act in our self interest-- which it well may be-- then the country needs to be prepared for shock and horror-- with Twitter being one of the first mediums to break international news, we may grow accustomed to #DYING_IN_SYRIA next to #WHAT_IS_MILEY_WEARING. IS that a world in which we wish to live?
It's a complicated question, with no clear answer. One has to wonder what it was like, prior to Pearl Harbor, for the United States to sit idly and watch the Germans bomb London from afar. This author can say that, while horrified by the Assad regime, he is not about to join the military and fight the bastard as a result. In a nation of freedoms, as discussed previously, we are free to ignore abominable acts a globe away. Many of us are exercising that freedom. Perhaps, even most are. I hope not-- and not just for the self interest of gaining some readership.
But American soldiers, who have commit themselves to our defense, may very well begin engaging in a new conflict. Today's speech was testimony of the Obama Administration's resolve to not be made to look foolish: by declaring that the use of chemical weapons would change his calculations, he seems to have trapped himself. Yet a further glance will show, like a true law professor, he has left himself room to wiggle.
Current reports are that President Obama is undecided. And truth be told, the Constitutional right to declare war still belongs to Congress. And given that Congress cannot pass a budget, what hope is there that they could agree on what qualifies as prudent use of the military?
It's clear that Assad is a wolf. But who has the credibility to point out what big teeth he has?
Yes, second hand information from German intelligence, given to the United States and flagged for spuriousness, was used by Colin Powell in his address to the United Nations in the march towards the Iraq War. And why not? Donald Rumsfeld gave his opinion that the 9/11 attacks could be used as grounds for invasion of Iraq, before the information had been sifted and examined by cooler heads.
Why not blame him 9/11? This was a despot who flirted with the assassination of George Herbert Walker Bush. Assigning more deeds of villainy to the man does not violate his character. His son, Uday, was a notable psychopath who beat a man to death in front of then-President Mubarak at a dinner party. These are the types of people we were dealing with, and their misanthropy should not, could not be underestimated.
And there it is. The problem was that the shoe fit too well. Saddam Hussein has used chemical weapons on the Kurdish population before, had an active (although fruitless) nuclear program, and even explored biological weaponry in 1985. As time went on, United States intervention became inevitable, and yet inexplicably we left Saddam Hussein in power following the conflict; perhaps it was because the brain trust at the time saw the dangers of a power vacuum in the region. Hussein was left subject to UN weapons inspectors, the geopolitical equivalent of having Bill Lumbergh sticking his head in the country and making sure it was working on Sunday. Annoying for Saddam, but hardly an impediment to mischievous scheming.
The U.S. knew what Saddam was doing, all the way up to 1991 when the United States attacked. The H.W. Bush Administration even held out hope that there would be a coup to replace his leadership before intervention became necessary, as (more or less) happened in Libya to the Gaddafi regime many years later.
All of this historical backdrop may seem superfluous when discussing Syria and John Kerry's speech today, which delivered a case for intervention. He acknowledged the country's weariness with intervening in far corners of the globe, unsure what interests are there and what role our political, economic, and moral position requires of us.
But he also made an interesting point: the UN's mission statement declares that it is designed to only "inspect" for chemical weapons, and report whether they have been used. Impotent to do anything else, it falls on the United States' shoulders to carry out action. He also gave a laundry list of consenting countries, while conveniently failing to mention David Cameron or other critics. Cameron, I might add, is channeling a wee bit of Neville Chamberlain and a pinch Catholic schoolteacher, recommending our response to Syria be a "tsk tsk" and a few "For Shames!"
The preponderance of evidence is overwhelming, and the country finds itself much more in the position of 1991 than 2003. After all, do we not regret the stationary inertia of 1994, when Rwanda was experiencing genocide on a Holocaust scale? The United Nations was the stick in the mud, the fly in the ointment, the gum on the shoes then too. To this day, there are people who deny that the Jewish Holocaust ever happened; need we wait for them to be convinced before action is taken in Germany?
But speaking of flies in ointments-- is the United States in a position, after making such a debacle in Iraq for, as it turns out, faulty reasons? Removing Saddam Hussein was a positive result that came from poor evidence. Inversely, poor results can come from actions based upon good evidence. Should the country rattle its sabers so soon after sheathing them elsewhere?
This is the pickle that we have brined for ourselves. If we want to claim that our foreign policy is based in humanitarianism, in keeping a modest harmony between nations, then we have to act. That is the standard that we set. If we deem it wise to only act in our self interest-- which it well may be-- then the country needs to be prepared for shock and horror-- with Twitter being one of the first mediums to break international news, we may grow accustomed to #DYING_IN_SYRIA next to #WHAT_IS_MILEY_WEARING. IS that a world in which we wish to live?
It's a complicated question, with no clear answer. One has to wonder what it was like, prior to Pearl Harbor, for the United States to sit idly and watch the Germans bomb London from afar. This author can say that, while horrified by the Assad regime, he is not about to join the military and fight the bastard as a result. In a nation of freedoms, as discussed previously, we are free to ignore abominable acts a globe away. Many of us are exercising that freedom. Perhaps, even most are. I hope not-- and not just for the self interest of gaining some readership.
But American soldiers, who have commit themselves to our defense, may very well begin engaging in a new conflict. Today's speech was testimony of the Obama Administration's resolve to not be made to look foolish: by declaring that the use of chemical weapons would change his calculations, he seems to have trapped himself. Yet a further glance will show, like a true law professor, he has left himself room to wiggle.
Current reports are that President Obama is undecided. And truth be told, the Constitutional right to declare war still belongs to Congress. And given that Congress cannot pass a budget, what hope is there that they could agree on what qualifies as prudent use of the military?
It's clear that Assad is a wolf. But who has the credibility to point out what big teeth he has?
No comments:
Post a Comment