By Edwin Cooney
For the past few weeks, you and I have been chewing our
fingernails up past the elbow wondering what to do about the Syrian
government’s apparent practice of chemical warfare against its own people.
Should we be doing anything? Is it any
of our business what any sovereign government does to its people? If so, is it exclusively America’s business
what other nations do to their rebels? Do other nations have the right to
concern themselves with the way our government treats you and me?
Next, there’s the matter of consequences. Are the rebels against Bashar al-Assad good
guys or bad guys? Come to think about
it, we’ve been wondering the same thing about the opponents of the Egyptian
government. As bad as Bashar al-Assad
is, might he be overthrown by a fundamentalist Islam faction that could be as
dangerously hostile to us as either Al-Qaeda or as the Iranian government has
been since 1979? If so, might we be
better off keeping “hands off?”
Even liberals are wondering what their president is up
to. They’ve twice elected Barack Obama
believing that he, unlike his predecessor, shared their reluctance to engage in
what they regard as “international outlawry" and now they’re not quite so
sure that he does. Since at least 2011,
President Obama has administered international executions using Special Forces:
Osama Bin-Laden was killed on May 1st, 2011 and Colonel Muammar
Gaddafi (with the assistance of NATO) died on October 20th,
2011. Additionally, as a part of our
assistance to Afghanistan, he has authorized the launching of drone attacks not
only upon Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces, but also on American citizens residing
in that part of the world who were suspected of aiding terrorist organizations. Now, he’s apparently considering some kind of
“shock and awe” missile strike against Syria in the tradition of every
president since Jimmy Carter. Even
worse, the Obama administration appears to be as secretive about its domestic
information gathering activities as were either Bush or Ronald Reagan. Hence,
lately even liberals are asking that old question: what is this country coming
to?
I would be misleading you if I even suggested that I knew
the answer to that question. However, there are some invaluable lessons in our
history books which we would ignore at our peril. So, let’s take a look.
Through the Emancipation Proclamation and the passage of the
Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, Abraham Lincoln left us, as his
legacy, the expectation of the advancement and perpetuation of human
freedom. In order to do that, however,
“Father Abraham” suspended some constitutionally guaranteed rights such as
habeas corpus and freedom of the press during the Civil War. In May of 1863, Mr. Lincoln even had Clement
Vallandigham, a former member of Congress, arrested for his antiwar activities
which were conducted near military bases in southern Ohio. The lesson here, as I see it, is that human
rights are absolutely essential only so long as they guarantee the preservation
and expansion of human liberty.
On March 4th, 1933, the day he was inaugurated as
President, FDR asserted to a demoralized and panic-stricken nation: “The only
thing we have to fear is – fear itself...”
That pronouncement proved prophetic.
On February 19th, 1942, although both he and FBI Director J.
Edgar Hoover initially insisted that Japanese Americans weren’t a threat to
national security, FDR caved in to the political pressure (mainly from west
coast Republicans who included California Attorney General Earl Warren) and
signed Executive Order 9066. That order
authorized the internment of those who were Japanese and living on the west
coast whether they were born in Japan or in the United States. The lessons here are multiple. First, truth and logic aren’t necessarily the
same. While it may be logical to believe
that Japanese Americans, or Arabic Americans, or Islamic Americans may be loyal
to native countries, cultures or religions, that doesn’t prove that they truly
are. Second, political pressure in a
democracy is generally both essential and healthy, but that doesn’t guarantee
the wisdom of its effect. Third,
fairness and equity are as vulnerable during wartime as human life itself.
It’s my guess that President Obama doesn’t really want to
launch any kind of an attack on Syria and is gambling on the possibility that a
combination of isolationist Republicans and liberal Democrats will not approve
his request for authority to do what he really doesn’t want to do. Perhaps the Israelis have informed him that
if he doesn’t take action they’ll fill the “leadership vacuum” which Great
Britain and the U.S. are vacating in world affairs. (Note: on Sunday, June 7th, 1981,
Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in defiance of world opinion.) It may be in our best long term interests not
to intervene in Syria’s domestic affairs.
After all, if we intervene in the Syrian government’s domestic options,
can we ever really complain if another country intervenes in our affairs in
defense of a religious or ethnic American minority?
Yesterday, today and tomorrow are alike in two significant
ways. There are always things to be
wondered about and there are always new lessons to be learned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No comments:
Post a Comment