As Dana Milbank pointed out in Wednesday’s Post, the administration needs to come clean with the facts on which it is basing a decision to intervene unilaterally in Syria. This momentous decision should not be made in sealed rooms by political interests that currently can’t function in the nation’s interest. Sufficiency of information, says Milbank, is achieved when we the people are satisfied with the evidence. Not before.
Our current threats of military intervention are symptomatic of insecurity, not of strength. Humility would suit us better.
Britain thought it knew what was best for the countries so very fortunate to have been included in its Empire. How lucky people were to benefit from the British introducing them to shoes, the English language, and cricket. Even with these blessings, the astute observer can’t help but notice certain resentments today.
The USA’s dogmatic faith that its is the correct way to live, the true way to be free, is a fatal conceit. Why are we unable to listen to, consider and sometimes even embrace ideas different from our own? It seems we have a juvenile view that to do so would show weakness.
Yet everyone already knows of our military might. Our need to teach other nations a lesson in the face of their bad behavior is an archaic form of discipline.
Physical strength is less commanding than ideas—and always will be. Restraint and good judgment last longer (and are cheaper) than wreaking mass destruction—especially when we position it as retribution for horrific and remote killing.
Instead, we should use the UN to deal with Syria. While many see it as a flawed forum, is it any more complex and convoluted than the U. S. Senate, House or Executive branch?
Why go it alone when there exists a worldwide consortium of nations dedicated to “peacekeeping, peace building, conflict prevention and humanitarian assistance”?
Will it really be harder to bring leadership to the UN than deal with the consequences of invading Syria alone?
Our military might is feared. And in freedom lies our power.