Tag Archives: Syria civil war

Syria? New Candidate For The Blame Game?

 

If the United States gives weapons to the Syrian rebels, they may fall into the hands of terrorists. If we don’t give weapons to Syrian rebels, Syria may become a terrorist state. If diplomatic solutions are pursued, they may fail. If we don’t act now, bad things may happen. If we do act now, different bad things may happen.

As many have said, Syria presents no good options. Ethnic conflict has developed which is difficult to put back into the bottle. It has spilled over into Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and Israel. No doubt some options are better than others, but it may be a while before we know if we have chosen the right one. And even the right one is bound to be less than ideal.

Perhaps we should just go for the “best bad idea.” Only, it is doubtful that the ending will be as happy as the Academy Award winning tale of the rescue of six Americans from Iran in 1979.

A problem for Americans is our belief in the quick, happy ending, as in the movie. Always. A way must exist for the Syrian crisis to be resolved peacefully, democratically, and justly. Preferably in a few weeks. If not, we must find a villain.

Americans want their leaders to make perfect decisions when no such decisions exist. Sometimes, because of the unfortunate political reality of today, leaders make no decisions or make them later than they should. They know fallout is going to result whatever they do. Each political party will attempt to make political mileage out of  it.

“Politics stops at the water’s edge,” is attributed to Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg in 1947. The idea is that partisan politics stops at the water’s edge, since both parties should desire the best for the country and present a united front in facing the nation’s foreign policy problems.

Alas, Senator Vandenberg, where are you now?

 

From Vietnam to Anti-War Protester to Syria and Iran

 

In his first trip abroad as U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry spoke to a Facebook gathering of youth in Berlin. One questioner asked “And since you have served the Army [actually Kerry served in the Navy], what exactly made you an opponent of the Vietnam War and maybe of war in general?”

Kerry answered that he went to Vietnam because he wanted to serve his country, and his country’s leaders said that the conflict there had “strategic implications for the country.” Instead he came to believe that the conflict was NOT strategic to America’s interests but was instead a civil war between Vietnamese. That’s why he led Veterans Against the War on his return.

Some wars must be fought, when America’s interests are directly attacked, Kerry said, but not “wars of choice.” Others have warned against being drawn into war when American interests are not directly affected.

Kerry was careful to emphasize our strong relationship with the European allies he is visiting, because they are based on mutual interests of strong democracies in a dangerous world. For decades we helped protect allies there from the Soviet Union until democracy replaced most of the communist regimes in eastern Europe. Europe was and is a strategic interest for us.

But what about countries like Syria and Iran? The U.S. and Europe have an interest in the war in Syria not turning into a dangerous regional conflict, with terrorists gaining a foothold, and Iran not becoming a nuclear power. We do not, however, want to send troops into what is a civil war.

These will continue to be subjects Kerry and others will discuss with allies. The ghosts of Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan will stand as backdrop to their decisions.

At each step on Kerry’s trip, Syria and Iran have been topics of discussion. How do we encourage the non-terrorist opposition without ourselves become too embroiled in this civil war? How do we find the “right” sides to aid?