FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

America Hopscotches Into Syria

I’ve been watching and listening to a growing number of people in the United States get their hackles up about the moral atrocities going on in Syria. And, with each tear shed and each cry howled, I have also become increasingly disgusted with what passes for geopolitical comprehension in this country.

As a nation, the chorus for war against Assad and his allotment of chemical weapons grows louder and louder. He has become the new Saddam, the re-worked Noriega: he is the object of our moral outrage and, therefore, the caricature that makes us feel better about ourselves. We must intervene to end this “unspeakable outrage,” declares the President. This Administration cannot stand idly by while a brute kills his own people. This is the rationale, at any rate, just as similar verbiage became the rationale for the invasion of Iraq, the deployment of drones, the destruction of Vietnam, etc. etc.

The basic question asked by so many hand-ringing and concerned westerners is, are there not moments in which the US/Europe has the moral imperative to intervene in a conflict? Put another way, is there really an argument against intervention in instances in which innocents are being coldly slaughtered? It sounds straightforward enough: If bad people do bad things to innocent people, then those who see those bad things should try to stop them from happening, particularly if they have the power to do so. However, this ideological stance would have the U.S. play the part of beneficent world actor and would purport that there are moments in which the U.S. should act because it has the ultimate moral authority. This is the (in my view) frightening view that I think has guided too many of us in this nation, generation after generation. A basic question is left unasked- who is the U.S. to act? We avoid this question, I believe, out of a sense of inherent superiority. The logic goes like this: when we kill, we display some degree of moral compunction. In other words, we do it, but we hate it. When those Brown or Black people do it, it is because they are intrinsically savage. With the dead piling up higher and higher in our name, I do not think that we, as a nation, can claim to hate it.

Beyond this, though, there is a misinterpretation of history that undergirds the interventionist thinking that has taken hold among some on the Left and would have us believe that “the bloodied hands” of the U.S. and Europe is a thing of the past, or that somehow we have transcended a past of boorish atrocities and arrived at a place of moral superiority. Clearly, this is not the case, and I don’t think we need to review the long list of disturbing foreign policy positions to prove my point.

We, as individuals, may watch in horror at atrocities committed throughout the world and want them to end. What we tend not to see are the long stretches of history (and the current meddling by so-called Northern powers) in which interventions in those nations have led to or exacerbated the very atrocities from which we cringe. In the case of Syria, humanitarian interventionists cry over the civilians killed by the Assad government, but are only marginally disturbed by the prospect of civilians being killed by Tomahawk missiles built in Ohio. Or dying from exposure to depleted uranium. Or, if things get really wild, being melted by phosphorous munitions. (All of which, of course, happened to countless civilians of Iraq. We, after all, love our chemical weapons, just not theirs.) Equally, few seem perturbed about the civilians who would invariably be killed in the eventuality of a rebel victory (as if Jabhat an-Nusra has proven itself thus far to be a band of right-thinking fighters for justice). These, I suppose, are problems that will prick the conscience later, after the dust has settled, and our warships cruise out of the Mediterranean. At least we will have done the right thing at that moment!

What is missing is a more complex analysis of the manifold forms of violence, so that we can begin to move beyond reacting to the flashes of subjective violence (the horrors that scream out of the television screens and drag us to do something, anything!) and start dismantling the objective violence that lies all around us. Until then, I am certain that the body-count of Black and Brown people around the world will grow and grow as the United States plays its own brutal game of hopscotch across the globe.

TARECQ M. AMER is an urban geographer who can be reached at tmamer@ucdavis.edu.

More articles by:
September 24, 2018
Jonathan Cook
Hiding in Plain Sight: Why We Cannot See the System Destroying Us
Gary Leupp
All the Good News (Ignored by the Trump-Obsessed Media)
Robert Fisk
I Don’t See How a Palestinian State Can Ever Happen
Barry Brown
Pot as Political Speech
Lara Merling
Puerto Rico’s Colonial Legacy and Its Continuing Economic Troubles
Patrick Cockburn
Iraq’s Prime Ministers Come and Go, But the Stalemate Remains
William Blum
The New Iraq WMD: Russian Interference in US Elections
Julian Vigo
The UK’s Snoopers’ Charter Has Been Dealt a Serious Blow
Joseph Matten
Why Did Global Economic Performance Deteriorate in the 1970s?
Zhivko Illeieff
The Millennial Label: Distinguishing Facts from Fiction
Thomas Hon Wing Polin – Gerry Brown
Xinjiang : The New Great Game
Binoy Kampmark
Casting Kavanaugh: The Trump Supreme Court Drama
Max Wilbert
Blue Angels: the Naked Face of Empire
Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will Their Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
Louis Proyect
Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9”: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics
Ramzy Baroud
Why Israel Demolishes: Khan Al-Ahmar as Representation of Greater Genocide
Ben Dangl
The Zapatistas’ Dignified Rage: Revolutionary Theories and Anticapitalist Dreams of Subcommandante Marcos
Ron Jacobs
Faith, Madness, or Death
Bill Glahn
Crime Comes Knocking
Terry Heaton
Pat Robertson’s Hurricane “Miracle”
Dave Lindorff
In Montgomery County PA, It’s Often a Jury of White People
Louis Yako
From Citizens to Customers: the Corporate Customer Service Culture in America 
William Boardman
The Shame of Dianne Feinstein, the Courage of Christine Blasey Ford 
Ernie Niemi
Logging and Climate Change: Oregon is Appalachia and Timber is Our Coal
Jessicah Pierre
Nike Says “Believe in Something,” But Can It Sacrifice Something, Too?
Paul Fitzgerald - Elizabeth Gould
Weaponized Dreams? The Curious Case of Robert Moss
Olivia Alperstein
An Environmental 9/11: the EPA’s Gutting of Methane Regulations
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail