My Diary title is semi-facetious, but there is an element of truth that I want to discuss. President Obama today set a new precedent. For the first time since Ronald Reagan took office, a sitting president is letting Congress, as a presumed proxy for the people of the United States, to weigh in on an incursion. This, in effect, gives the people veto-power on the option of using Tomahawk cruise missiles in a "punitive" strike on Syria. I say let's USE our veto power and make this whole debate a broader discussion of America's role in the world in the 21st century. Read on below for a succinct explanation...
Pax Americana cannot and should not endure in a 21st century shrunken world. The idea of American exceptionalism and world hegemony that has guided our nation's policy makers since WWII needs to end.
China is rising as an economic and political power. We must work and cooperate with them as partners, not adversaries, as they continue to evolve both economically and politically. The emerging markets are now equal in aggregate size of their economies as the entire developed world, whereas just 12 years ago, they were about half the size.
Russia, while still authoritarian, has come a long distance since the days of the Cold-War that followed the wars in Europe. Communism has been defeated. The only real challenges remaining in the world order are the Middle East, rogue regimes including North Korea, terrorism, and global climate change. The developed and developing world need to work in unison to tackle these challenges, especially in this nuclear age in an interconnected global economy.
Going it alone, for all intents and purposes, in Syria to "send a message" and "maintain our credibility" sets us back on the global stage, and will actually hurt our leadership role we can play in tackling the biggest global challenges. I don't make light of the awful carnage that Assad has foisted on his people, including the use of banned chemical weapons against international law. This is unacceptable behavior and will result in consequences for Assad and his regime in due course. If he ordered the attacks, he is the worst sort of criminal, a mass murderer. However, a limited air strike against his facilities will be ineffective at changing his behavior and could have horrific unintended consequences. We just don't know. Eventually, he can be tried as Serbia's Milosevic was, but let's not hasten his demise just yet, at a time when the void in his regime's absence could be worse, and extremists who may follow him would have access to those same chemical stockpiles.
But going back to the bigger picture, we need to have a national discussion, even debate, about how to deal with these sorts of matters generally, and how to work as a member of the world community. We should stop pretending that we are THE world power to enforce world order. This has to be a multilateral effort. We no longer have the economic strength or dominance (nor balance sheet) to police the world and act as a lone enforcer. Besides, this sort of behavior by us will alienate those very developing nations we need to be cooperating and working with, possibly slowing their continued growth and development, which ultimately hurts our economy as well as the global economy. With health and environmental threats faced by overpopulation and climate change, the world needs to be re-ordered.
The concept of "nations" were from an "analog" world with a fraction of today's world population and much slower modes of tranportation and communication, not to mention a time lacking in weaponry that could destroy human civilization. I'm not suggesting we go to a "one-world nation", just that we need to both strengthen the United Nations and act as a positive influencer on the unification of all nations to tackle the global challenges in a digitized or "shrunken" world. Otherwise, in the long-term, America and the rest of the world is facing an existential threat, as I am fairly certain that eventually the WMD's will be used and humankind may not survive it. This must be avoided at all costs.
In short, the Syrian chemical weapons atrocity is a pimple on the ass of the 800-lb gorilla that the entire world faces.....human exinction at the hands of future rogues, whether they be governments, terrorist groups, or lone wolves, that could unleash nuclear weapons and other WMD, and/or allow destructive global warming and environmental degradation to make planet Earth uninhabitable for 7 billion humans.
That's the discussion that should be wrapped within the coming Congressional debate on Syria. Yes, I am against the attacks because I don't think they will work to dissuade the bad actors, and could make matters worse, even if we are justified in punishing the crimes of Assad. However, my opposition has more to do with being tired with our nation's tired mindset of militarism and hegemony that has lasted the past 70 years. We need to evolve as a nation and a species....or we very well could perish.