Greg Sargent argues that the debate about intervention in Syria-the President insists no boots on the ground-is making it hard for many in the 'anti-war Left' to know how to come down in it.
"In one sense, you’d think the impending American strikes on Syria would provide a more fertile organizing opportunity for the anti-war left than the run-up to the Iraq War did. Polls show widespread opposition to strikes, in the belief they will be ineffective — even though the public is convinced of Assad’s guilt in using chemical weapons — suggesting public sophistication in questioning the costs and benefits of military violence. War-weariness seems palpable. A dozen years have passed since the September 11th attacks, which were fresh in the public mind when George W. Bush sought authorization for the use of force in Iraq barely a year later."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/09/04/syria-provides-tough-challenges-for-anti-war-left/
These conditions he has in mind are the fact that there is very little time-between Assad's use of chemical weapon and Obama's quick decision to put this to a vote before Congress, with the fact that there won't be ground troops will make it tougher to achieve the level of mobilization achieved in the run-up to Iraq-in that case there was a lot of time, and it would end up being a-very-extended ground war.
Nevertheless there is a good deal of moblization against action in Syria already. In update Sargent tells us that CREDO is already close to its goal of 200,000 signatures. MoveOn.Org is also mobilizing opposition:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/moveon-plans-to-launch-major-effort-against-use
Out of interest I checked what Noam Chomsky is saying-he is as close to a canonical voice of the 'real Left' as you will get. He doesn't support it. This clarifies his view as he had made comments recently that seemed to plausibly suggest that some kind of invervention or at least helping the rebels might be the right choice:
"A U.S.-led attack on Syria without United Nations support would be a war crime regardless of congressional approval, Noam Chomsky, the antiwar activist and author, said in response to President Barack Obama's announcement that he would seek Hill approval."
"CHOMSKY: Libya is a special case. Libya is a civil war. Should the West intervene militarily? That's very doubtful. I don't think so."
"There's a long way before that question even arises. First of all, the people don't want it. Remember that the West is hated, for good reasons. Take, say, Libya. Eastern Libya, which was just pretty much liberated. That's the site of the first post-World War One major genocide - Italy in that case - that we may not remember; they do. And there's a long history since, England, France...."
"In one sense, you’d think the impending American strikes on Syria would provide a more fertile organizing opportunity for the anti-war left than the run-up to the Iraq War did. Polls show widespread opposition to strikes, in the belief they will be ineffective — even though the public is convinced of Assad’s guilt in using chemical weapons — suggesting public sophistication in questioning the costs and benefits of military violence. War-weariness seems palpable. A dozen years have passed since the September 11th attacks, which were fresh in the public mind when George W. Bush sought authorization for the use of force in Iraq barely a year later."
"Yet, in an ironic moment for the left, multiple other conditions are conspiring to create challenges for anti-war activists that in some ways are more difficult than the ones they faced in the case of Iraq."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/09/04/syria-provides-tough-challenges-for-anti-war-left/
These conditions he has in mind are the fact that there is very little time-between Assad's use of chemical weapon and Obama's quick decision to put this to a vote before Congress, with the fact that there won't be ground troops will make it tougher to achieve the level of mobilization achieved in the run-up to Iraq-in that case there was a lot of time, and it would end up being a-very-extended ground war.
Nevertheless there is a good deal of moblization against action in Syria already. In update Sargent tells us that CREDO is already close to its goal of 200,000 signatures. MoveOn.Org is also mobilizing opposition:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/moveon-plans-to-launch-major-effort-against-use
Out of interest I checked what Noam Chomsky is saying-he is as close to a canonical voice of the 'real Left' as you will get. He doesn't support it. This clarifies his view as he had made comments recently that seemed to plausibly suggest that some kind of invervention or at least helping the rebels might be the right choice:
"A U.S.-led attack on Syria without United Nations support would be a war crime regardless of congressional approval, Noam Chomsky, the antiwar activist and author, said in response to President Barack Obama's announcement that he would seek Hill approval."
"As international support for Obama’s decision to attack Syria has collapsed, along with the credibility of government claims, the administration has fallen back on a standard pretext for war crimes when all else fails: the credibility of the threats of the self-designated policeman of the world," Chomsky told HuffPost in an email.
"Chomsky recently traveled to the region to learn more about the Syria crisis, and his comments there led some to believe he was open to military intervention if negotiations failed to produce peace. "I believe you should choose the negotiating track first, and should you fail, then moving to the second option" -- backing the rebels -- "becomes more acceptable," he said.
"But his comments to HuffPost indicate that he remains opposed to any military action that came without U.N. approval."
"[T]hat aggression without UN authorization would be a war crime, a very serious one, is quite clear, despite tortured efforts to invoke other crimes as precedents," he added.
I wonder if he can give an example of a war crime that is 'not so serious.' Although in the past he has argued that he is not a pure pacificist, this seems to suggest that basically he's saying it's never ok to intervene even when a considerable part of a country wants you to.
I understand the importance of gaining U.N. support. However, it's tough for me to understand why helping the Syrian rebels is a 'war crime, a very serious one' without Russia's blessing, but legitimate with Russia's blessing-as Russia is what is impeding the U.N. from agreeing to intervene. I'm not sure specifically what government claims he's claiming collapsed. He visited Syria himself and admits that Assad is certainly committing his share of crimes himself.
Is the answer simply to leave the Syrian people to the mercy of Assad? Chomsky also opposed intervention in Libya:
"PAXMAN: Do you think the West should go as far as arming the dissidents in Libya?"
"CHOMSKY: Libya is a special case. Libya is a civil war. Should the West intervene militarily? That's very doubtful. I don't think so."
"There's a long way before that question even arises. First of all, the people don't want it. Remember that the West is hated, for good reasons. Take, say, Libya. Eastern Libya, which was just pretty much liberated. That's the site of the first post-World War One major genocide - Italy in that case - that we may not remember; they do. And there's a long history since, England, France...."
Chomsky was wrong in this case in claiming that the 'people don't want it'-in fact, many Libyan people did want the intervention-which was not against the U.N.'s position as this case of Syria currently is. I think both Syria and Libya are a lot less clear cut than Iraq. However, Chomsky opposing these pretty much is opposing any outside military help for a country even when it is the people's will-as they lack the military power themselves. Libya had the element he says is unacceptable in the Syria case-the U.N. supported it.
No comments:
Post a Comment