Syria
and the Northern Star
For
nearly five years our entire national (and often local) politics have been
centered on one person, Barack Obama. He
has been our Northern Star.
Back
in April, in the aftermath of Margaret Thatcher's death, we touched
on the emotional aspects of being either an Obama-hater or an
Obamabot. Now, in the wake of the
ongoing crisis in Syria, and Mr. Obama’s surprising request for Congressional
approval of military action, I want to talk about the intellectual and policy
implications of this intense focus.
Syria
shines a light on this in a way the way nothing else has since Mr. Obama took
office. It is a highly complex problem
that resists easy answers: particularly if the only tool in your pocket is your
Obama Compass.
I
have often been amazed at how many Republicans excoriate Obama for
everything--even ideas that were Republican in origin. They just can’t stand the man; they orient
themselves on any public event or policy matter as the anti-Obama, even to the
point of complete irrationality.
Democrats
(including me) are guilty as well; we are far too willing to give Obama the benefit
of the doubt when we would have been at the ramparts if Bush were still in
office. I could defend myself by
pointing to the pervasive ugliness you see in many of the assaults on Obama,
and there is a lot of ugly to go around. But I think that is just as much a
crutch as that used by those who attack on sight. It can’t be just about Obama, it has to be
about core principals. Either you have them, or you don’t, and while governing
is often about finding a middle ground, there are aspirations that should not be
easily surrendered, and actions that are simply anathema. In short, some political and policy ethics
cannot be situational.
And
that is why Syria is such an incredibly difficult issue for everyone, because
once you get past the nonsense trope that none of this would have happened if
Obama had conducted a more manly foreign policy (in case you haven’t noticed,
the Middle East is one endless tribal war and the Assads have been murderers
for decades) you still are left with gigantic questions. What are American interests there? Do we have
a humanitarian duty, and if yes, why doesn’t the rest of the world share it?
Who are the good guys—and knowing who a bad guy is doesn’t mean we know who the
good guys are. If we are willing to
intervene, how much of our military resources that we should be willing to
deploy? Missiles? Airstrikes by drones? Airstrikes with our air force? Boots on the ground? Are we willing to commit to staying there
afterwards? None of this is easy.
When
Mr. Obama kicked the can to Congress, he may have reminded us that outsourcing
our intellect to our limbic system isn’t really enough. There is no sound bite that will resolve
this. Rather, we have to think about
this, pick through difficult options, and be willing to accept a
less-than-optimal result. In short, we
have to make choices and live with the consequences.
There
has been (and it will continue) an outpouring of criticism of how Mr. Obama
handled the situation to date. Some of
it is justified. But once everyone gets
done indulging his or her pique, the problem still exists, and still begs for a
solution. Congress itself is confused.
Ed Keefe, in
the Washington Post, identifies at least five different opinion
caucuses in the House and Senate. They
range from the drumbeaters for big military action (McCain/Graham) to the “do
it now” caucus, the “happy to debate, reserving judgment” group, the “skeptical
but will listen” bloc, and what O’Keefe calls the “anti-military action
caucus.” What is even more fascinating
is that you can’t necessarily tell what side they are on by simply checking the
letter on their jersey. The antis, for
example, consist largely of a completely improbable alliance of isolationist
Tea Party types and older anti-war liberals.
There
is both promise and peril here. Promise,
because if the parties can actually work together on this, maybe they can work
together on other things. Peril, because we can really screw this up if we
aren’t careful. Doing something just
because Obama didn’t do it, or hasn’t asked for it, is not a guide. Nor is blindly following his
recommendation. The reactions of many in
Congress over the last 24 hours show a recognition of that.
There’s
a fascinating moment in Hilary Mantel’s Wolf
Hall, where Henry VIII is discussing archery with Thomas Cromwell. Cromwell tells the King that he often
practices by entering tournaments with his guild against the butchers, the
grocers, and the vintners. Henry’s eyes
flicker to life; he suggests they go together, with Henry in disguise. But he knows it’s a fantasy; he cannot escape
his rank, he cannot escape being King, and the moment passes. It is a throwaway scene that tells you
nothing, and everything.
That
is Congress’s problem right now. Obama
has gone to them, as many of them demanded, and they cannot escape their
rank. He has explained why he wants to
intervene in Syria, and in the next several days, Secretary of State Kerry and
other officials will provide additional information. There will be some who persist in seeing it
as a political problem only; at least two conservative columnists I read
yesterday saw an opportunity to trade GOP support for some domestic concession
by Obama. Lives for tax-cuts and
entitlement reform.
But,
at the end of the day, each person will have to take a stand. Some will try to prevaricate, some will
hedge, many will bluster or blame the predicament solely on Obama and, by doing
so, try to escape their responsibilities.
But all will end up voting. All
will be on record. Sometimes, it is not all that much fun to be King.
My
friend Cynical Cynic emailed me last night to say, “The case is a moral one.” Perhaps, when you have lost your Northern
Star and have to fly by dead reckoning, “moral” is as good a guide as any.
MM
