Secretary of State John Kerry's testimony before Congress this week arguing for military action in Syria is incoherent nonsense because it couldn't be any other way. Everyone who honestly tries to think about this unspooling catastrophe ends up bound in loops and knots. It's just more dramatic for Kerry, who has to explain in a steady voice that we aren't going to war, just authorizing a "response," and we aren't clear what that might look like, but it certainly won't entail "boots on the ground." Round and round, explained with professional earnestness. From the man who once, a generation ago, asked Congress how you could ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake. I feel bad for him.
This is what happens when a nation has to honestly discuss matters of life and death and the course of nations. This is an important moment, but it is not a repeat of the run up to the war in Iraq. While it is certain that the Bush administration's foolishness hangs heavy over everything that we do, it is only in the sense that we wasted every scrap of goodwill we once had with the wider world, which makes everything harder. But Obama is not Bush. There is no malice, no cynical efforts to twist matters for hidden ends.
No, this is nothing like 2003. We are having an actual debate. Those of us who were against that war remember how much worse it was, the feeling of hopelessness, isolation, and helplessness in the face of mass delusion. Today, half my twitter feed is made up of anti-war sentiments. We are in a different world. And it is insulting to hear pundits claim it is the same. Recovering warmongers like Andrew Sullivan talk about this like AA members badmouthing about demon alcohol.
We should be grateful we are going through this process. I applaud President Obama for throwing the matter to Congress, which is not only politically savvy in spreading the blame, but it forces that cracker factory of a legislature to grow up and behave. And not coincidentally, it is the right thing to do according to our Constitution, which has been ritually ignored in these matters since 1964. (Among the most unpleasant aspects of this is how often I have to agree with Sen. Rand Paul).
There is nothing black or white here, and those that think it is, whether Sen. John McCain and Medea Benjamin, are profoundly misguided. It comes down to this: whether you are for war or against, whether it happens or not, you should feel uncertain and shitty about it. Because this is a perfectly uncertain and shit moment.
After thinking about this months, I've decided I'm opposed to action because I don't think it will help anything, and I we have neither the ability nor the will to bring order to this hornet's nest. More killing courtesy of our expensive cruise missiles won't help.
But that alone doesn't feel right. Perhaps the Congress can do is approve conditional military action if we can prove there is another chemical attack. Because there are people in Damascus now who live in terror of another gas attack, and perhaps if the regime has that kind of threat hanging over it, it might make them pause. At least that would be a moral thread to grab at.
This is what happens when a nation has to honestly discuss matters of life and death and the course of nations. This is an important moment, but it is not a repeat of the run up to the war in Iraq. While it is certain that the Bush administration's foolishness hangs heavy over everything that we do, it is only in the sense that we wasted every scrap of goodwill we once had with the wider world, which makes everything harder. But Obama is not Bush. There is no malice, no cynical efforts to twist matters for hidden ends.
No, this is nothing like 2003. We are having an actual debate. Those of us who were against that war remember how much worse it was, the feeling of hopelessness, isolation, and helplessness in the face of mass delusion. Today, half my twitter feed is made up of anti-war sentiments. We are in a different world. And it is insulting to hear pundits claim it is the same. Recovering warmongers like Andrew Sullivan talk about this like AA members badmouthing about demon alcohol.
We should be grateful we are going through this process. I applaud President Obama for throwing the matter to Congress, which is not only politically savvy in spreading the blame, but it forces that cracker factory of a legislature to grow up and behave. And not coincidentally, it is the right thing to do according to our Constitution, which has been ritually ignored in these matters since 1964. (Among the most unpleasant aspects of this is how often I have to agree with Sen. Rand Paul).
There is nothing black or white here, and those that think it is, whether Sen. John McCain and Medea Benjamin, are profoundly misguided. It comes down to this: whether you are for war or against, whether it happens or not, you should feel uncertain and shitty about it. Because this is a perfectly uncertain and shit moment.
After thinking about this months, I've decided I'm opposed to action because I don't think it will help anything, and I we have neither the ability nor the will to bring order to this hornet's nest. More killing courtesy of our expensive cruise missiles won't help.
But that alone doesn't feel right. Perhaps the Congress can do is approve conditional military action if we can prove there is another chemical attack. Because there are people in Damascus now who live in terror of another gas attack, and perhaps if the regime has that kind of threat hanging over it, it might make them pause. At least that would be a moral thread to grab at.
No comments:
Post a Comment