Our understanding of what has already happened in Syria is grounded in facts, informed by conscience, and guided by common sense.
John Kerry, 8/26/13
Here are the Secretary of State's remarks:
Mr. Kerry is obviously preparing Americans for an illegal U.S.-led military intervention in Syria by claiming that the Syrian regime is guilty of atrocities. The corporate media have fallen into line and are beating the drums of war. This may be a tough sell, since a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted last week (August 19-23) found that 60% of Americans oppose intervention in Syria while only 9% support it. Of course, past experience shows that the easiest way to increase support for war is to go to war.
In his statement, Mr. Kerry emphasized that the evidence that chemical weapons have been used is “undeniable” and that this action was a “moral atrocity.” His factual claim is almost certainly true, and his moral judgment is shared by almost everyone, but none of this proves that Syrian President Bashar Assad knowingly carried out the chemical attack. His invitation to Americans to watch videos of the dead victims is a transparent encouragement to be swayed by our emotional responses and ignore the lack of evidence that the Syrian government is responsible.
To what extent is our understanding of what happened in Syria “grounded in facts?” So far, Kerry has provided few facts. Although United Nations representatives are investigating the incident, Kerry explicitly stated that this investigation will only determine whether chemical weapons were used, not who used them. Having defined the U. N. fact-finding mission as irrelevant, he seems to be saying that we will intervene regardless of the contents of their report, and maybe before it is released. Meanwhile, our government is showing disturbing signs of confirmatory bias, behaving as if it were a prosecutor gathering evidence in support of its initial hypothesis, rather than exploring all possible hypotheses.
What “facts” have been presented? Kerry said, “We know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these weapons. We know that the Syrian regime has the capacity to do this with rockets.” This proves absolutely nothing, since the same can be said about the Syrian opposition, which includes some defectors from the Syrian military, and several other Middle Eastern governments and political groups.
Kerry's other argument is that President Assad has delayed U. N. inspections—which, remember, are irrelevant anyway—and is either destroying evidence or allowing it to dissipate. This argument assumes that Assad's only reason for not wanting foreign investigators inside his country is concealment of evidence. As a thought experiment, imagine how Americans might respond if a committee of representatives of enemy nations demanded entry to the D. C. suburbs to investigate our government's activities.
Kerry promises that he will release evidence of Syria's guilt at some unspecified future time. He didn't say whether this will occur before military action is debated in Congress or the U. N. Security Council—if in fact it is debated by either of those bodies. One commentator referred to this speech as Kerry's “Colin Powell moment,” but it seems that the lesson Kerry has taken from Powell's experience is not to be specific about details that later can be proven false. The central point is that, so far, no one has publicly presented any evidence of who was responsible for the attack.
To what extent is our understanding of what happened in Syria “informed by conscience?” There is no doubt that using poison gas is a terrible actrocity, but I'm not sure that the rest of the world is impressed by moral lectures from a country that saturated Vietnam with Agent Orange (also a chemical weapon), that poisoned Iraq with white phosphorous and depleted uranium. A country that stands by while the Egyptian military we fund and support mows down over a thousand protesters in the streets. It might be a useful exercise to discuss whether it is more heinous to murder women and children with poison gas than to burn them alive in drone attacks. Of course, there is very little news footage of the aftermath of drone attacks, and what there is is usually censored in this country by the corporate media.
To what extent is our understanding of what happened in Syria “guided by common sense?” In fact, Kerry seems to be assuming we have checked our common sense at the door. For months, it has been reported that the Syrian government is winning the war and that the insurgency is collapsing. If so, what sense does it make for Assad to risk foreign intervention by using chemical weapons that are unnecessary for him to succeed anyway? It seems obvious that the insurgents have much more to gain by encouraging foreign governments to become more involved. (Syria's lack of motivation for the attack is so obvious that even the New York Times published an article filled with speculation about why Assad was behaving so irrationally, but, of course, never questioning the premise that Syria is responsible for the incident.)
Kerry may be appealing to a different kind of “common sense”—the knowledge that if you repeatedly tell Americans that some foreign leader is a brutal dictator, they will believe him to be capable of anything. The easiest way to mobilize support for war is to create a negative image of the intended enemy and accuse him of terrible atrocities. And so the recent past repeats itself in the Middle East.
You may also be interested in reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are always welcome.