"Syria Puts Our System On Trial" by E.J. Dionne

1,400 hundred Syrian citizens died in Assad's recent gas attack.

On 9/11, nearly 3000 people died in the United States, of whom slightly more than 2000 died in The Twin Towers.

Adjusting for population, Assad's gas attack killed the equivalent of 19,076 Americans - the entire population of Selma, Alabama.

***

Dear Fred,

Thanks for forwarding E.J. Dionne's excellent article.

It is a masterpiece of balance - the prudential work of a deep-ecology Catholic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._J._Dionne

My only categorical criticism of Dionne is his use of the word "plausible." "The administration’s view is that only a negotiated settlement will produce anything like a decent and stable outcome in Syria — and that only forceful U.S. action now will put the United States in a position to get the parties to the table. It’s not tidy or an easy sell, but it’s a plausible path consistent with what the United States can and can’t do."

As you know, I believe Sunni and Shiite sectarians are determined to have their Thirty Years War just as Protestant and Catholic principalities waged pan-European war in the early 1600s, followed by centuries of chilly detente. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty_Years'_War

"The Sunni-Shia Schism: Historical Causes And Consequent Animosity"

http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-sunni-shia-schism-and-resulting_1.html

Syria is a geopolitical carbuncle that will erupt Krakatoas of pus no matter how it's settled.

Reading Dionne confirms my sense that "the Syrian question" is another attempt by The Party of Angry White People (now supplemented by irate Democrats) to destroy Obama's presidency. 

It is as if the GOP categorically refuses to "invade" any country that actually has weapons of mass destruction as opposed to belligerent zeal when confronting imaginary WMD.

Dionne's conclusion is -- literally and figuratively -- "the bottom line." "If Obama wins this fight, as he must, he should then set about restoring some consensus about the United States’ world role. He has to show how a priority on “nation-building at home” can be squared with our international responsibilities. The seriousness of this crisis should also push Republicans away from reflexive anti-Obamaism, Rush Limbaugh-style talk-show madness, extreme anti-government rhetoric and threats to shut Washington down. If we want to avoid becoming a second-class nation, we have to stop behaving like one."

Dionne also persuades me that "What To Do In Syria" represents a viable path to a limited, well-defined, specifically-targeted, no-boots-on-the-ground campaign that will mirror Obama's success clearing al Qaeda from Wazirastan and Abbotabad. 

My advocacy of targeted belligerence is not to say Hydra's head can be lopped once and for all. 

By nature, I am so close to pacifism that my deepest respect goes to people who practice it. 

Consider the Amish:  http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-amish-overview-by-bbc.html 

That said... 

"What To Do In Syria" - http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2013/09/what-to-do-in-syria.html 

Pax on both houses,

Alan

PS I am greatly encouraged by Russia's suggestion that Assad's chemical weapons be placed under international control, with an eye to their  destruction. As you probably know, John Kerry made this same suggestion a few days ago.  http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/politics/syria-kerry/

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Fred Owens <froghospital911@gmail.com> wrote:

dionne

--
Fred Owens
cell: 360-739-0214

My blog is Fred Owens

send mail to:

Fred Owens
35 West Main St Suite B #391
Ventura CA 93001

E.J. Dionne Jr.

Opinion Writer

It was only a matter of time before our polarized politics threatened to destroy a president’s authority and call into question our country’s ability to act in the world. Will Congress let that happen?

To raise this question is not to denigrate those, left and right, who deeply believe that the United States should temper its international military role. Nor is it to claim that President Obama’s proposed strikes on Syria in response to Bashar ­al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons constitute some sort of “slam dunk” policy that should win automatic assent. But a bitter past hangs over this debate and could overwhelm a discussion of what’s actually at stake.

E.J. Dionne Jr.

Writes about politics in a twice-a-week column and on the PostPartisan blog.

Archive

Greg Sargent

The Morning Plum: A liberal alternative to war in Syria?

The wretched experience of Iraq is leading many Democrats to see Obama’s intervention in Syria as little different from what came before. Never mind that the evidence of Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his own people is far clearer than the evidence was about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or that Obama has been so reluctant to take military action up to now. He faces a peculiar problem: While hawks criticize Obama for not being willing to act boldly enough against Assad, doves criticize him for being too willing to risk a wider war. Members of Obama’s party have to understand the risks of forcing him to walk away from a red line that he drew for good reason.

At the same time, Democrats will never forget how their patriotism and fortitude were questioned when they challenged President George W. Bush on Iraq and other post-9/11 policies. Yes, Bush did sign a fundraising letter before the 2006 midterm election that spoke of Democrats “who will wave the white flag of surrender in the global war on terror and deny the tools needed to achieve victory.” At a campaign event that year, he said of Democrats: “It sounds like they think the best way to protect the American people is to wait until we’re attacked again.”

I bring this up only to remind Republicans opposing Obama on Syria — and I’m not talking about the consistent anti-interventionist libertarians — that some in their party are making arguments now that they condemned Democrats for making not very long ago. Can we ever break this cycle of recrimination?

Obama bears responsibility here, too. Precisely because he had been so unwilling to intervene in Syria, he has handed opponents of his policy some of the very arguments they are using against him. Until Obama decided that the chemical attacks required a strong response, he was wary of getting involved, because the United States has reason to fear victory by either side in Syria. His old view may have been reasonable, but it can easily be invoked to undercut his current one.

The question now is whether Congress really wants to incapacitate the president for three long years. My hunch is that it doesn’t. This is why Republicans such as John Boehner, Eric Cantor and John McCain and Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi, Chris Van Hollen and Gerry Connolly all find themselves battling to give Obama the authority to act. The inconsistency of some Republicans shouldn’t blind us to the fact that others in the GOP are taking courageous risks to avoid paralyzing the president.

They will not prevail, however, unless Obama makes an unabashedly moral case onTuesday explaining why things are different than they were a few months ago while laying out a practical strategy beyond the strikes. He must do something very difficult: show that his approach could succeed, over time, in replacing Assad with a new government without enmeshing the United States in a land conflict involving troops on the ground.

The administration’s view is that only a negotiated settlement will produce anything like a decent and stable outcome in Syria — and that only forceful U.S. action now will put the United States in a position to get the parties to the table. It’s not tidy or an easy sell, but it’s a plausible path consistent with what the United States can and can’t do.

If Obama wins this fight, as he must, he should then set about restoring some consensus about the United States’ world role. He has to show how a priority on “nation-building at home” can be squared with our international responsibilities. The seriousness of this crisis should also push Republicans away from reflexive anti-Obamaism, Rush Limbaugh-style talk-show madness, extreme anti-government rhetoric and threats to shut Washington down.

If we want to avoid becoming a second-class nation, we have to stop behaving like one.

Read more from E.J. Dionne’s archive