|
War drums
are beating again in Washington. This time Syria is in the crosshairs after a
massacre there last week left more than 100 dead. As might be expected from
an administration with an announced policy of "regime change" in
Syria, the reaction was to blame only the Syrian government
for the tragedy, expel Syrian diplomats from Washington, and announce
that the US may attack Syria even without UN approval. Of course, the idea
that the administration should follow the Constitution and seek a Declaration
of War from Congress is considered even more anachronistic now than under the
previous administration.
It may be
the case that the Syrian military was responsible for the events last week,
but recent bombings and attacks have been carried out by armed rebels with
reported al-Qaeda ties. With the stakes so high, it would make sense to wait
for a full investigation -- unless the truth is less important than stirring
up emotions in favor of a US attack.
There is
ample reason to be skeptical about US government claims amplified in
mainstream media reports. How many times recently have lies and exaggerations
been used to push for the use of force overseas? It was not long ago that we
were told Gaddafi was planning genocide for the people of Libya, and the only
way to stop it was a US attack. Those claims turned out to be false, but by
then the US and NATO had already bombed Libya, destroying its infrastructure,
killing untold numbers of civilians, and leaving a gang of violent thugs in
charge.
Likewise,
we were told numerous falsehoods to increase popular support for the 2003 war
on Iraq, including salacious stories of trans-Atlantic drones and WMDs.
Advocates of war did not understand the complexities of Iraqi society,
including its tribal and religious differences. As a result, Iraq today is a
chaotic mess, with its ancient Christian population eliminated and the
economy set back decades. An unnecessary war brought about by lies and
manipulation never ends well.
Earlier
still, we were told lies about genocide and massacres in Kosovo to pave the
way for President Clinton's bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. More than 12
years later, that region is every bit as unstable and dangerous as before the
US intervention – and American troops are still there.
The story
about the Syrian massacre keeps changing, which should raise suspicions.
First, we were told that the killings were caused by government shelling, but
then it was discovered that most were killed at close range with handgun fire
and knives. No one has explained why government forces would take the time to
go house to house binding the hands of the victims before shooting them, and
then retreat to allow the rebels in to record the gruesome details. No one
wants to ask or answer the disturbing questions, but it would be wise to ask
ourselves who benefits from these stories.
We have
seen media reports over the past several weeks that the Obama administration
is providing direct "non-lethal" assistance to the rebels in Syria
while facilitating the transfer of weapons from other Gulf States. This
semi-covert assistance to rebels we don't know much about threatens to become
overt intervention. Last week Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, said about Syria, "I think the military option should
be considered." And here all along I thought it was up to Congress to
decide when we go to war, not the generals.
We are on
a fast track to war against Syria. It is time to put on the brakes.
|
