FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Decision to Bomb Syria Was Dangerous and Deceptive

Fifty-nine cruise missiles. When Donald Trump ordered the attack on Syria, he made an impetuous decision, turning his previous commitment to stay out of the Syrian civil war and focus on ISIS on its head. He ordered the attack on a sovereign nation without seeking sanction from the United Nations or the U.S. Congress. For this, he received lavish praise from the media and bipartisan congressional support. He’ll undoubtedly enjoy a boost in the polls.

Military force is called “strong power.” Ordering an attack turns the president into the commander in chief and gives him an image of decisiveness and power. Yet the unleashing of cruise missiles against Syria is both dangerous and deceptive.

If Trump has decided to commit to regime change in Syria, it is dangerous. Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad is backed by both Russia and Iran, and Assad’s forces are the leading opposition to ISIS, the terrorist gang that Trump is already committed to destroying.

If the cruise missiles are simply a punitive gesture, a one-off strike to punish Assad for allegedly using chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war, it is deceptive. The missile attack will have done little but raise false hopes among Assad’s opponents. One day later, Assad’s air force launched attacks from the airbase that was hit, against the same town that was allegedly bombed with chemical weapons.

Last year, the U.S. dropped 26,171 bombs — in Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan. The only thing that the new bombing in Syria does is to get Trump and the U.S. deeper into the Syrian civil war, even as Trump appears to be escalating U.S. activity in Afghanistan, Yemen and Iraq. During the campaign, Trump expressed his scorn for regime change and denounced the foreign policy elite for engaging in wars without ever “winning.” Now, he appears to be doubling down on those same wars without any plan for victory.

Bombs — strong power — are in fact simply destructive. They build nothing. In Syria, the human catastrophe from the civil war is unspeakable. Roughly half of the 22 million residents of Syria have been driven from their homes, including an estimated 6 million internally displaced and some 5 million refugees whose flight has created an ugly right-wing reaction across Europe. Half a million have died. Another 2 million have been wounded. More bombs aren’t a sign of strength; they are an expression of violent futility.

The horrible pictures of babies dying from poisonous gas might have sparked a different response. The U.S. could have gone to the U.N. with proof that the Assad regime had sponsored the attack, calling for a cooperative international effort to rid Syria of those weapons. Trump might have dispatched his emissary to Russia to demand that it join in fulfilling the promise it made to former President Obama to rid Syria of chemical weapons. The outside powers feeding the violence in Syria — the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Iran and Russia — might have convened in an effort to bring the violence to a halt, or at least to agree to stop fueling it with weapons and forces.

The children’s deaths might have served to generate a global demand for an end to the violence. Instead, it triggered a quick recourse to bombs to “send a message,” ensuring only that the violence will continue, that more Syrian children will be killed, and that the U.S. will find itself enmeshed even more deeply in yet another war.

The U.S. has been at war in the Middle East continually since 2001. In the name of creating democracy and security, we have created chaos and spread violence. In the name of fighting terrorism, we have generated ever more terrorists and helped create failed states where they can spawn. What will it take for this country to learn the limits of military force, the weakness of “strong power”?

Dr. Martin Luther King got it right when he taught us:

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral,
begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy.
Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.
Through violence you may murder the liar,
but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth.
Through violence you may murder the hater,
but you do not murder hate.
In fact, violence merely increases hate.
So it goes.
Returning violence for violence multiplies violence,
adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness:
only light can do that.

More articles by:

Jesse Jackson is the founder of Rainbow/PUSH.

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
Ted Rall
Why Christine Ford vs. Brett Kavanaugh is a Train Wreck You Can’t Look Away From
Lauren Regan
The Day the Valves Turned: Defending the Pipeline Protesters
Ralph Nader
Questions, Questions Where are the Answers?
Binoy Kampmark
Deplatforming Germaine Greer
Raouf Halaby
It Should Not Be A He Said She Said Verdict
Robert Koehler
The Accusation That Wouldn’t Go Away
Jim Hightower
Amazon is Making Workers Tweet About How Great It is to Work There
Robby Sherwin
Rabbi, Rabbi, Where For Art Thou Rabbi?
Vern Loomis
Has Something Evil This Way Come?
Steve Baggarly
Disarm Trident Walk Ends in Georgia
Graham Peebles
Priorities of the Time: Peace
Michael Doliner
The Department of Demonization
David Yearsley
Bollocks to Brexit: the Plumber Sings
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail