I. PUBLIC ATTITUDES

Most of the arguments in favor of a US strike on Syria ring hollow with majority opinion. Polls consistently show most US citizens oppose an intervention in Syria. This remains the case, in spite of the administration’s strong push, and a sustained effort by the corporate media to convince America to go to war.

A Gallup Poll just published by Newsweek states that 51% support a strike on Syria, while only 36% support one. A recent Pew Research Poll reported, 48% oppose a strike while only 29 % favor a strike.

The Newsweek article, says,

“Americans' support for the United States' taking military action against the Syrian government for its suspected use of chemical weapons is on track to be among the lowest for any intervention Gallup has asked about in the last 20 years.”

The politically active constituents appear even more dramatically opposed, with no Senate or House staffers reporting any significant support for the action; many reporting phone calls and emails AGAINST intervention by a margin of one hundred to one, or more. This is the case in districts which have Democratic, Republican and Independent majorities. Some members of Congress say they have not received “a single call or email” in favor of a US strike on Syria. Legislators who have commented on the public attitude have been sidelined during the recent hearings; and the “Leaders” who are spearheading the drive to war carefully avoid the issue of public opinion, and the huge number constituent of messages and calls opposing the war.

Supporters of the use of military strikes will have to base their reasoning on some other notion than the idea that the will of the people should prevail.

II. RECOURSE TO ALLEGED EXPERTISE: "I HAVE FRIENDS IN SYRIA"

In chat rooms and on blogs we may hear an argument like this:

“Oh, I have friends in Syria, or I lived in Syria.” “I know that’s what the people want.”

Or, some one might say, “I lived and worked in Libya…” and the people I talked to were very happy then, and are happy now about US and NATO bombing (which resulted in the deaths of over 30,000 people, which destroyed an economy which provided free health care and many public services, and which was the envy of most of Africa) [*note below on the 30,000 figure],

Or, the might say, “I lived and worked in the former Yugoslavia…” and people there were very pleased by US – NATO intervention (in spite of the fact that it was US, German, and Western financial intervention which precipitated the break up of Yugoslavia in the first place, through a series of bribes – also known as “loans” to various republics-- on the precise condition that they secede; and in spite of the fact that US NATO bombing accelerated and increased the death toll. The plan to “dismantle” the Yugoslav Republic was conceived under the Reagan administration, and many of its details have been declassified.).

An “activist” may not only claim, “I have friends in Syria,” or friends in Libya, and friends in the former Yugoslavia, but ALSO assert that they have lived in all three, and have friends in all three, and that everyone they know in all those countries is immensely pleased that the US and NATO bombed, regardless of deaths tolls in the tens of thousands.

How does one address such an argument? I have heard people unquestioningly entertain such blather, and say, “See. Listen to that. What do you say now about your belief that US bombings are a bad thing?” or words to that effect.

A person who makes such assertions, such as “I have friends in Syria,” etc. . . . should be open to answering serious questions. If such a person says, I don’t have to answer difficult questions, we may conclude their assertions lack a certain credibility.

“Why does it matter?” you may ask. Can we not accept on good faith, from a nice and well-spoken person, that what he says is accurate and true?

If we do accept such assertions, then we may fall prey to what I will call Christiane Amanpour Syndrome (not quite as bad as Grover Norquist Syndrome)

Christiane Amanpour Syndrome can be contracted by the conveyor of ideas, or the receiver.

A journalist or business owner, who spends most of his time conversing with the rich, or a certain class of people, imbibes the worldview of that class. It’s a common phenomenon. It’s most apparent when a person claims to know what “the Syrian people think,” but has only a very rudimentary understanding of the language of the common people, in this case Arabic. (Arabic is a difficult language for Westerners, and even long time residents only learn such phrases as "hello, how are you," "thank you," and "how much does that cost?" ; which means all serious conversation will be conducted in a Western language, such as English or French).

Of course if you only speak to Arabs who know English or French, you will not understand what the average Arab thinks.

US citizens, because they live in a country where the language of the elite is the same as the language of the 99 % (namely, English) may find this a bit hard to fathom, at first glance.

This phenomenon of cultural insulation is depicted quite clearly in the Oliver Stone film “Salvador,” where US journalists and business owners “get their news” and perspectives from English speaking elites, while hanging out in the hotels and hotpots of the rich. The genuine investigative journalist, who speaks the language of ordinary people, and does not rely solely on English, discovers that things are not exactly what the “one percent” want him to believe.

If a person says, “I have Syrian friends,” or “I have Libyan friends,” or “I have friends in Belgrade,” and if he bases his assertions about the country on those friendships, he should be asked certain questions.

What kind of friends did you have?

What kind of neighborhood did you live in?

(You may think such questions are not relevant, but bear with me; they are relevant when the person stakes many of his claims about a country precisely on those friends’ perspectives.)



Start with a basic fact: The average Syrian earned about 4,800 dollars a year in 2011-2012.

One may wish to ask the person who supports military intervention, who says, “I lived in Syria,” such questions as:

What did you earn per year?

What was the average rent paid for the home you lived in?

How long did you actually live in the country? A few weeks, a few months, more than a year?

How much time did you spend living in poor or working class neighborhoods, amongst people who earned 4,800 dollars a year, and who only spoke their own native Arabic?

Did you “own a business?”

What was the nature of your “business venture?”

Suppose you ran a transportation firm, an aviation company, or a collection of factories (for example).

Would your business have seen higher profits, if the economy had begun a policy of extensive privatization?



[I refer to the privatizations described by Naomi Klein in her celebrated work, “The Shock Doctrine.” It’s the economic model the US tries to impose on any nation it can, when it invades, or destabilizes or overthrows the government of another country].

None of these questions are designed to suggest that ALL business owners from foreign countries, or are “evil people.”

However, if one does not spend considerable time with the “ordinary” person, how can one understand his point of view?



Suppose many of the wealthy in Syria, esp. those who speak English and French, say: We want the US to bomb Syria. Suppose that is true. If you don’t speak fluent Arabic, you are likely to believe that is true. You may want to believe it is truly the opinion of the majority. (even though such “evidence” is purely anecdotal).

But such an outlook ignores the reality: If one is wealthy, one can move out of the way of areas to be bombed, well in advance. The poor, the vast majority in a developing nation like Syria, cannot do so.

If the US bombs, invades, and topples the government, and exercises great influence in the aftermath, the wealthy will be well positioned to take advantage. Personally, members of the upper class (read: “the one percent”) will not have suffered greatly from the bombing, not as much as the vast majority and the poor. Some of these will simply be designated at their deaths as “collateral damage.”

So when a person says, “I have friends,” in Syria, or any other place the US bombs, one must ask, what kind of friends?

These people may be your friends, but are they friends of “the Syrian people” as a whole? Do they really want the greatest good for the greatest number of people living in Syria? Do you want the greatest good for the greatest number in Syria, or just the greatest good for your friends?

Or are you using the issue of atrocities, committed by the regime, to justify a US intervention that may kill a great many more people, without even thinking. Are you doing this instinctually, because you live in relatively secure circumstances, and it is easy for you to argue for military attacks from the comfort of your own home, far away from any war zone?

As a follow up, one might ask,

Did you have any friends who died as a result of the US military attack and subsequent occupation of Iraq?

Did you have any friends who died as a result of the US military attack and subsequent occupation of Afghanistan?

People who say, “I have friends” in Syria may not like such questions. But if they don’t have friends who have died under US bombs, they may be only intent on getting across one side of the story.



III UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS COULD A US MILITARY INTERVENTION CONCEIVABLY BE RIGHT OR JUST?

I add this third section, simply as a short addendum, to clear up misunderstandings that easily arise upon this question.

Some people put the question this way: if you see turmoil, or hear gunfire in a neighbor’s house, should you call the police? And if the police enter and use force to put down violent aggressors, are they not correct in doing so? Why would a US strike on Syria be any different?

There are many ways to answer this:

a. If we are talking about a black, a native American, or other minority community, there are many neighbors, depending on the circumstances, who WOULD NOT want to call in police from the outside. They may fear the police would kill indiscriminately or use overwhelming force, out of their total disregard for the lives and well being of the community in question. Many Blacks and Native Americans believe they have very good reasons to feel as they do on this issue. That may be hard for some living outside the community in question to understand. But who can blame them?

b. In any case, the analogy is a false one. There are certain legal niceties that must be addressed. The United States Government is literally “not the police of the world,” either in theory, or according to law. According to the UN Charter, no nation may take it upon itself to become “the police.” The Security Council itself as a body, must decide upon and approve of military actions to be carried out. That is the bare minimum requirement, according to international law, and Article 51 of the Charter. A nation may use military force, without UN Security Council approval, ONLY when it is invaded or under a direct threat, which is clearly not the case with regard. The US is not directly or indirectly threatened militarily by Syria, as the President just admitted in a recent speech. (Nor is there any provision which says, “If one government feels that other nations are ‘obstructing’ action at the UN, then anyone can launch a military strike on their own discretion.”)

c. Some might say to me personally, you are implying that you favor a military strike, when the UN Security Council does approve. I am amazed that people will jump to that conclusion. I say, AT THE VERY LEAST, the US must have UN Security Council authorization to have a legal justification to strike Syria. It is, in my view a necessary, but not a sufficient condition. Such authority does not appear forthcoming, so a US strike against Syria, will have neither legal nor moral justification, on that basis alone. Military aggression is, according to international law, the greatest of all moral crimes.



HOWEVER, even when the UN Security Council DOES authorize the use of force, that by itself does not necessarily mean it is right.

The UN Resolution authorizing the use of force in Libya, for instance, the so-called “no fly zone,” was designed for only one purpose: to protect the lives of civilians. That was its ostensible purpose, in any case. Its official purpose was NOT to effect regime change, nor to take sides in the conflict in Libya. However, NATO forces did deliberately, with forethought, take sides in the conflict and work wholeheartedly to effect regime change. Before and during the eight month bombing campaign, many agencies and Nations (inside and outside of Africa) offered to mediate between sides in the conflict. They were rebuffed by the Washington, Paris and London.

THOSE WHO REJECT MEDIATION ARE INTERESTED IN NEITHER PEACE, NOR THE TRUTH.

They prefer the quickly conceived mainstream media lies, and the attitude of “let’s have our war now,” the sooner the better, before the people get wise, and let’s worry about consequences later (mainly in order to cover up, or obscure any inconvenient facts, or to “manipulate” the data after the fact).

Result of entire campaign, bombing and internecine strife in Libya: 30,000 dead, a nation devastated and still in social chaos. (See Note* below). That’s why the Russians and Chinese denounced the action, ultimately, and felt misled. It’s why African nations did not endorse the US and NATO bombing of Libya. And it is also why the Russians and the Chinese (and most of the world) are against a US strike in Syria. After Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, US motives are not universally trusted, to put it mildly.

Permit me to stress this argument: A UN Security Council authorization of a military strike is absolutely necessary to make it legal. But such an authorization does not, of necessity, make it moral.

[If a person making such an argument is called “inconsistent,” or worse, is called “a liar,” then the attacker just has not taken the time to think the argument through. Arguments made in chat rooms, on talk radio, or on online open microphone talk shows, are often made precipitously, without careful attention to what has actually been said. This is why it is important, sometimes, to set the train of thought down, so that others may see the full logic of the discussion].

I have yet to see a UN authorization of a military strike which was morally justifiable. My view is that there has not yet been such an authorization. Part of the problem is, given the way the UN is currently structured, a UN military attack force will always be the joint strike tool of a very small set of nations. So far such forces have only been the tool of the US, and one or two of the other allied veto powers. And one must ask, could these forces be considered “UN military forces,” in either practice or theory?

A UN military force, which was genuinely commanded and controlled, and sent into action by the UN itself, and not the generals of one or two powers, would be something entirely different from what we have seen so far. What would be required for it even conceivably to have any moral legitimacy? The veto power itself would have to be revoked, and the General Will of the international community would have to be the approving authority of any “legitimate” police action. That day appears to be very, very far off. Is it even on the horizon?

If the General Will of the International Community were to find some means of expression through the UN General Assembly, or a restructured Security Council, I am sure that a military strike on Syria from outside, would not be in the cards. Even most Americans don’t even believe that such a strike would have a salutary or beneficial effect. The world at large is even more skeptical.







* Note on 30,000 dead in Libya. That figure is one offered by the Government that was installed after conclusion of bombing campaign, with the blessing of the Western Powers.

Some people insist on a rather artificial distinction between the numbers who actually died specifically under US and NATO bombs, and the total number killed in the civil war. (People are still dying, by they way, and US ambassador Stevens was not the last casualty, due to a war which had, and still has many “unforeseen” negative consequences, such as the spillover war in Mali, caused by the NATO bombing, and mass lynching of the black Tuaregs, who fled to Mali).

One may say, with reasonable accuracy, that the US, NATO bombing—along with military action by US backed forces on the ground—precipitated and accelerated a large full scale civil war which resulted in the deaths of 30,000, and perhaps many more to come. The conflict is not over yet.