A Tale of Three Heroes

Journalism, as we are often told, can be dangerous work. The latest reminder has come in the beheading of Jim Foley, held by ISIS in Syria. While it’s sad that some military personnel have to die in combat, we expect that consequence in war. But when it happens to a reporter, especially in the form portrayed in an awful video designed to send a message, we are shocked, because it’s not supposed to happen to journalists, whose only weapons are newsgathering equipment. It’s safe to say, though, that Foley was no stranger to the risk he was taking, a risk that hundreds of journalists around the world take on a daily basis.

The U.S. rejected a huge ransom demand and put “boots on the ground” to rescue Foley and other hostages held by ISIS in Syria -- another great risk, not only physically, but politically. The mission failed, because the hostages had been moved. I’m reminded of the failed attempt to rescue hostages in Iran back in the 1970s. I’ve always believed that Jimmy Carter would have been re-elected President had that attempt succeeded.

Whether we like it or not, we are now at war with ISIS. The only sensible response is for us to “behead” the organization. We know who many of the leaders are, and we may have to send elite military teams in to get them. Simple bombing, droning, and even a massive invasion won’t work, but a targeted effort just might.

On a considerably happier note, there are two other heroes to celebrate: the American doctors who are said to have recovered from a disease that has heretofore been almost exclusively fatal: Ebola. Like Foley, Drs. Kent Brantly and Nancy Writebol knew the risk they would be taking on the ground in Africa to help deal with an epidemic. They had to take a second risk: submitting to the use of a largely experimental drug. The favorable outcome holds promise for its future use.

When bad things happen to such people, maybe we shouldn’t be too shocked. The perils they face come with their respective territories. They are no less heroes of war than those who carry guns. We do need reminding, though, that wars of many kinds go on all the time, and the warriors involved aren’t always wearing the uniforms and carrying the weapons we expect.

Sea Changes

Let me see…we were about to launch an attack on Syria, but now we’re talking to the Russians about their plan to secure and destroy Syria’s stockpile of chemical weapons. And now the new president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, has ended the denial of the Holocaust and wants to negotiate over that country’s plans to become a nuclear power. What’s going on here? What triggered this? It’s not spring. But could it be an equinoctial thing?

Probably nothing so semi-metaphysical. I think it’s more about enlightened self-interest. The Russians have substantial military and economic interest in what happens in Syria. Putin & Co. would probably like to see the Assad regime stay in power for as long as possible. In Iran, maybe reality is setting in. CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, who interviewed Rouhani, says he wouldn’t be making nice unless he had authorization to do so from the religious leaders of his country, and why would they provide it? Could it be that economic sanctions are actually hurting, and the old men who run that country realize that the general population, which is much younger and less hateful of America, might be upset with them if they don’t change their attitudes? Is it a case of  “the devil knowing his time is short”?

Some Americans may have trouble trusting either the Russians or the Iranians, after our past history with their respective governments. But there are few more solid foundations for trust than an opposing party doing something that’s good, simply because circumstances are leaving no other choice.

So the next question is, if our worst enemies are finally doing something we want them to do because they have to do it, can the same principles work with forcing Congress to work through differences on Obamacare and the debt ceiling?

I think locking members of Congress in the Capitol and locking all the bathrooms there until they get this done would work just fine. There are few more powerful incentives than having to go because you have to go.

Hearing the Dinner Bell

For the better part of two years, the Obama administration has told us that all options are on the table to deal with the crisis in Syria. The table is set, and dinner is about to be served.

On Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry’s words of warning were clear: there was no question that chemical weapons had been used on civilians – a moral obscenity, and the clear crossing of the so called red line had occurred.  It wasn’t all that long ago that another Secretary of State, Colin Powell, displayed graphic evidence, or so we were given to believe, of the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Ah, but this is different, right? Syria really does have chemical weapons. And apparently, the regime no longer has compunctions about using them. But as for moral outrage about this, do you think it might be possible that at least one of the 100-thousand-plus civilians who died by what we might call conventional means may have suffered equally horrible or even more agonizing deaths than the current nerve gas victims? The red line was drawn in a strange place.

What we have been learning the hard way about the Middle East is that dictatorships have served as artificial lids on boiling pots. Military action on our part won’t turn down the heat in Syria.

Is the red line really about U.S. credibility? In the case of Syria, we lost it two years ago. So is firing off a few missiles really going to send the message to Iran and/or Russia that we’re not to be trifled with? They’ve been trifling with us a long time. What is different about this moment?

To my mind, there is only one justification for military action: obtaining control of the chemical weapons or destroying them so that the Assad regime can’t use them on civilians anymore and so that they don’t fall into the wrong hands. Unless military force attains those goals, it’s a waste of time and resources. Our attention might better be paid to the plight of the hundreds of thousands of Syrians displaced by this conflict, many living in desperate situations in countries that can’t handle them.

If we really have to sit down to dinner, it might be a good time for someone to say grace – and pray hard before we pick up the knife and fork.

The Big Thaw

Spring is only a few weeks away. The ice, still solid enough on northern lakes to support heavy trucks, is imperceptibly weakening as the sun angle increases a few degrees each day. When the ice finally starts to break up and water reappears, it will seem as if it happened all of a sudden, but the process will have started much earlier – we just couldn’t detect the evidence of it.

It’s my feeling that thaws are breaking out all over. Take immigration reform – an insoluble problem for decades. But Romney lost the election, many say, because of the Latino vote. It wasn’t some wild political swing. For decades, Latinos have been having more children than folks of other ethnicities – there are simply more of them, but the evidence is only now making headlines. True, not all Latinos are Democrats, but a lot voted that way. So now even Republicans are talking about immigration reform. Positions frozen for decades are unfreezing.

The same is happening with gun control, although it took a terrible tragedy to spur the breakup of long-frozen positions on that score. The NRA is no longer a solid block of immovable ice, or at least the block is smaller than it once was. Women will be officially allowed combat roles in the military – unthinkable until this month. Will widely accepted gay marriage and the legalization of marijuana be next? I wish the big thaw would extend to tax reform, but that ice is pretty thick yet.

Then there’s the economy. The struggling stock market has actually been improving for years, but it seems like it happened just last week, when the Dow closed above 14,000 for the first time in recent memory. Home sales are increasing; money is flowing again.

Even internationally, I hear ice cracking. Iran has agreed to return to the talks on its nuclear program. Is this simply deception, or is a hard frozen position melting? Even some members of the Syrian opposition are no longer ruling out talks with the brutal Assad regime.

Is common sense actually starting to bloom? I don’t know about you, but I’m convinced something is going on. Spring is a hard season not to like.

Time to Intervene in Syria?

There is a long list of reasons why Western powers have resisted military intervention in Syria during the current uprising. Here are a few, in no particular order:

1. The situation is too complex.
2. Russia and China voted against the Security Council resolution.
3. The opposition to the Assad regime is splintered.
4. Assisting the opposition would lead to civil war, and perhaps regionwide war.
5. An attack which leads to the ouster of Assad will open the door to Al Qaeda.
6. Americans are weary of war; besides, the U.S. can’t afford another one.
7. Involvement would spark a new round of terrorism against the West.
8. Iran, Syria’s ally, might close the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation, causing an oil crisis.
9. Further instability in the region would threaten Israel.
10. It’s none of the West’s business; it's an Arab issue.

Against all these – and perhaps others which haven’t been mentioned here -- there’s only one argument for intervention: STOPPING THE MURDER OF CIVILIANS.

Which of these reasons is the most compelling?