This business between the United States and Syria is no small thing. I believe we quite possibly may be at the nexus of a significant paradigm shift in the commerce of foreign relations. The president has been talking tough, like so many presidents before him, but I sense that he has never been sold on striking Syria, as deplorable as the carnage there has been. He bought time by taking the matter to congress. He conceded that we didn’t have irrefutable proof that the chemical weapons were deployed by the Syrian government; he has welcomed talks with the U.N.; and he has expressed approval of the plan for Syria to hand over to international control its chemical weapons. He has played an exquisite game of Chess. I don’t see him waffling, rather I see savvy. he knows that two wrongs don’t make a right.
Heretofore beginning with Vietnam we as a nation have rushed headlong into battle with little or no justification. (other than the coercion of the military industrial complex) That has been the paradigm, and it has cost us billions, and worse the deaths of soldiers, the wounded and maimed men and women of our armed forces, and the profound emotional toll that always, always comes with being involved in the violence of war. My uncle was a navigator in the air force in World War II. His plane was shot down and he lived, but he never recovered from the emotional trauma. Depression plagued him the rest of his life. It is no small wonder that over half of our homeless population are veterans. Violence begets violence.
One Senator as to the crisis regarding Syria stated that once we make a threat, the particular threat being the bombing of Syria, then we have to follow through lest we lose credibility. That is ridiculous. What if our leadership delays chaotic violence in order to see its way clear to a diplomatic solution. Sometimes there is wisdom in changing one’s mind. That is what is going on now with the notion of Syria turning over it’s chemical weapons to international auspices. The diplomatic solution has now opened its doors, and let us pray that this crisis is resolved in this way. Such a development may set a precedent for a new paradigm between the U.S. and our neighbors. We can cease being the world’s policeman, ever ready for war, and collaborate creatively with other nations, our partners around the world. We may well make some friends in the process, and we may set the precedent that violence is never a means of reconciliation, but that wisdom and good common sense is. Blessed be the peacemakers.
Amen. It always amazes me how in American politics one side perceives as weakness what the other perceives as wisdom. I am hopeful that in this case it is latter. Either way, I think he is, so far, playing it correctly, leveraging the threat of attack to push forward a non-violent outcome. I’m not convinced, however, that is his intention…
I completely agree with paragraphs two and three. If I weren’t quite so lazy, I would take the time to dig up a bunch of recent quotes from the President that would be quite the opposite of your supposition in paragraph 1. I have been astonished at how vehemently he has been trying to get an a agreement by congress to bomb Syria. As such, I am a bit mystified as to your conclusions about his intentions in paragraph 1.
I hope that the Russian offer is accepted and we can continue with the hard and frustrating process of trying help broker an end to the violence.
Well said, Jim.