President Obama (and staff) recently took the teeth out of some Republican ire (or as it is more aptly called, flinging of pooh), by taking the Republicans at their word and asking them for approval to strike at Syria after Syria's government (seemingly) used chemical weapons on its own citizenry in the on-going civil war.
I say seemingly only because the case is not fully proven, though the evidence seems pretty stark. Vladimr Putin apparently doesn't believe it, but Putin can best be described as disingenuous on his good days, dishonest and corrupt on his bad. Those Republicans who doubt the attack occurred may want to consider this fact before climbing in to bed with Putin on a factual point (so to speak). It might have the effect of making them look foolish to agree with the Russian dictator.
By asking the Republicans to OK a strike, Obama dares his opponents to fail to act against the clear and present use of WMD and the threat such willingness brings to the wider world, including the US. Those Republicans, many of whom are hawks, many (nearly all) of whom backed the war with Iraq on a lower level of imminent danger, will have to weigh their visceral hatred of Obama's presidency against their own need to appear "strong" on defense and to provide justification for out of control military spending. Some, like John Boehner, may even get the point that this is a true crime, and whether they like or dislike Obama, want or don't want to spend profligately on the military, some may come to the conclusion that they must back action. If so, good for them.
But many, including the likes of Russ Johnson (Sen - R - WI), will cleave to their steadfast and reflexive reaction to oppose anything and everything Obama supports. They will call him weak on foreign policy and point to his willingness to stand up to our "enemies" (Iran) as evidence of such weakness, but then will vacillate and cause the country to in fact seem weak by opposing military action when Obama does in fact seek to act.
This will harm their brand. Make no mistake. And so it appears to be the height of political shrewdness for Obama to call their bluff on military authorization.
Yet, maybe not so fast.. because it also then does something Obama should avoid. For, by asking for advanced approval, then in order to act at this point, Obama must get congressional approval and an approval which relies upon getting his own party, normally the party of a much more prudent and restrained approach to military adventurism, to approve what the "say no to everything" party would not approve. He requires some doves to act like hawks, and they may not chose to do so. If they don't, he will be de-clawed and with him the entire United States. Further, the authority of the Office of the President will have been diminished. That's not OK, it's not good, and it's not the right thing in this case.
Many people on the right, due to their reflexive hatred of Obama, oppose action in Syria. They do so despite the fact that they support attacking Iran. The support doing so because they see Iran as an imminent threat to national security. Mitt Romney ran saying he'd likely attack Iran nearly immediately if elected. John McCain was famously quoted that he'd, "Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, Bomb Iran." Neo-Cons (and other cons too) say we should attack Iran because they are developing WMD (nuclear weapons), have ties to terrorists, and might given them WMD. When you contrast this with Syria, you have a country which has ties to the same terrorists as Iran, is no less likely to give them WMD, and unlike Iran not just MIGHT use them but HAS used them.
Obama has erred here in that he has given Congress the right to interfere in his penultimate authority and responsibility as President. The President has the duty to act in the face of a clear and immediate threats to national security. And here's the thing. The use of WMD by ANYONE is a clear and present danger to US (and world) security. Moreover, it is a fundamental violation of international law, law which we are signatory to uphold. The case for attacking Iran is weak (at best) because Iran has no history of use of WMD of any form. Further the use of nuclear weapons by Iran would result in immediate, unstoppable military response from the wider world to topple and replace the Iranian government. In short, the use of WMD (nuclear in this case) by Iran or any other nation against some other nation (or internally) would be seen as an unforgivable violation of law and morality. It would be violently responded to, and immediately. Any President would not seek congressional approval to immediately act to deny Iran the ability to use such weapons a second time. That's how this is seen about Iran.. a nation which MIGHT use WMD.
Syria is a nation which DID use WMD. They violated foundational elements of international law, they violated foundational elements of the rights of sovereign nation to act without interference. The world, not just the US - though we agreed - has said that exterminating your own citizens (with WMD or otherwise) is a violation of "natural law" and one which must be stopped. We used this justification to support our prosecution of German and Japanese war criminals. We' have said in the apst that such acts must be opposed and without hesitation. We can't stop all such conflicts, though, for we do not have unlimited resources, but we CAN and in fact MUST act when WMD are used. They are the unforgivable sin. Such use indicates a nation willing to engage in ANY act, including potentially providing them (for example) to terrorists for the use against our allies (like Israel) or even against our own citizens. They have shown exactly the willingness we fear in Iran. This is a not only a national security threat, it's a crime against humanity.
The bottom line is simply this. Many people seem to think the military is purely for the purpose of addressing those things which are in our "strategic interest" which they rather "blinderedly" restrict to only those things which they see as of a strategic economic interest. I fundamentally disagree. I think strategic interest includes these kinds of crimes. Not only do I think so, so does the world, and for that matter so does the US government if past history and treaty obligations are any guide. That shouldn't be necessary to say, though. If you feel it was WMD use (in this and Iraq's cases chemical weapon use) that warranted removing Saddam Hussein, then you have to agree with acting in Syria. Those Republicans who supported one and oppose the other are the ultimate two-faced hypocrites. Securing oil, which can be reasonably argued was the actual "strategic economic interest" motive for Iraq - such an argument can also be reasonably argued as well as wrong to have done. It's not OK to put in motion events which lead to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqis just to get US oil companies access to large oil reserves, in fact, it's highly immoral to do so. No, unlike that, the more imperative and the basic question is this, if you don't use your military might to stop THIS kind of crime, this kind of horrific conduct, to stop a criminal government from exterminating vast swaths of people (its own or others), then why in God's name have a military at all?
John McCain is like a broken century clock, he's right about once every 100 years. He is in this case right. He said the President doesn't need approval to oppose crimes against humanity. That's true. Just like stopping the genocide in Bosnia, just like stopping Hitler, it IS this kind of thing which is a good and proper use of military force. It is this kind of thing which polishes our good name and gives our soldiers additional and ample reason to stand tall and feel proud. It is this kind of humanitarian intervention which makes us leaders and provides an example of how we do so much good (unlike what the terrorists claim). It is this which sets us apart from the likes of Vladimir Putin and fundamentally morally better than the falsely justified, morally bankrupt economic war Bush waged in Iraq.. Obama needs no excuse, needs to offer no explanation to Congress before acting, and only will fail if he fails to act. We will be judged impotent and will have, once again, stood aside against an unforgivable crime when stopping such crime is the badge we claim each and every time we act elsewhere. We will be the hypocrites, not just Republicans, each and every one of us will be. The world is watching and waiting. It is time to act - political cleverness and calculus be damned.
No comments:
Post a Comment