US Congress Weighs the Pros and Cons of Military Intervention in Syria

Syrians on both sides of the civil war have weighed in on the debate in Congress about whether to support President Obama’s call for a limited military strike. The rebels and Bashar al-Assad supporters are deluging members of Congress with various media pleading their case. Supporters continue to claim that Assad forces didn’t use the sarin gas and emphasise the danger of the US effectively supporting Al Qaeda.

Rebels insist the gas was used by Assad forces, and continue to plead for assistance against a tyrant who reigns undemocratically and massacres his own people with impunity. 

The problem for the West is that there isn’t enough balanced information about who makes up the rebel forces. There’s a lot of media coverage now on those rebels who torture and murder prisoners in the most horrific ways, which has created an idea that all the rebels are vicious thugs who don’t deserve any assistance at all from the West. Either that or they're completely dominated now by Al Qaeda.

Whatever the truth is, they've been fighting a losing battle from the start in their attempts to convince the West that they need help. A lot of Westerners believe the Middle East is an uncivilised region, lagging hundreds of years behind the West. They quote treatment of women, the enormous wealth in the hands of the few, and undemocratic governments.

Memories are so short when it’s convenient. Has everybody forgotten that Egypt had the world’s first ever peaceful revolution? And a closer look at the West reveals shocking gender inequalities, increasing seemingly senseless violence, phenomenal wealth in the hands of the few and, in the US, a US Congress that may have been elected but is, if not ruled, at least highly influenced by the military industrial complex. Racism, religious intolerance, religious fundamentalism and white collar crime are rampant as is child pornography. 

People are sinking below the poverty line and those who could help turn their heads away. In fact, in the West that event is so common that we even have a cliché for it. When times are difficult you find out who your friends are.  

It’s not such a civilized picture after all. And yet we cling to the idea that we’re ahead somehow of the Middle East. Well, the reality is we may be in some ways, but in others it’s the same play, just different props and costumes and a different stage. And truth is, when we compare the two, we take the best of the West and the worst of the Middle East. 

So in reality none of that has anything to do with whether Syrian rebels should get Western assistance or not.  

International relationships don't provide much help either. They're so complicated; and we don’t know the half of it; information is probably more often than not fed to the public on a need to know basis, filtered through a radically biased media, either deliberately distorted or simply misinterpreted. 

The permutations of what could happen as a result of different actions by different countries are countless. Imagine this: if President Obama got support from Congress to go ahead with a limited military strike against Assad for using chemic weapons on his own people, it would, oddly put the US in Al Qaeda’s good books, which maybe wouldn’t be such a bad thing. Particularly since Putin’s refusal to back the intervention would put Russia in Al Qaeda’s bad books.  Maybe then Al Qaeda would turn their attention away from the US and focus it on Russia. Which would put Putin out of power.

It's a stretch, I know. But trying to come up with a perfectly sensible and unassailable social or political rationale for intervention or not is pretty much impossible. So in the end it's down to humanity and not setting a very dangerous precedent by letting a maniac massacre his people with impunity and play with chemical weapons and get away with it. And those two arguments are pretty unassailable, I think, no matter which way you look at them.  

I wish there was another way, though. But is it possible to stop a violent man with peaceful means?

The Second Egyptian Revolution Without Violence - Democracy in Action

President Mursi and the Muslim Brotherhood are out, as Egyptians pull off their second successful mostly non- violent revolution in under three years. There was no violence at all until pro-Mursi supporters clashed with police or civilians. Over 300 were wounded and 7 died.

But anti-Mursi protesters were never interested in violence. They wanted change. Two mostly peaceful revolutions is an impressive record in a region not noted for its democracy and an era where everybody is quick to resort to violence. Up until last night there was no evidence of police or military in the streets and Tahrir Square where hundreds of thousands gathered to chant “out, out” and celebrate in advance the demise of a president who didn’t keep his election promises and wasn’t doing his job properly. 

A president who created a government out of an unpopular party, excluded opposition and commandeered the Constitution for a month. Ironically, though, he gave the military the power to over-ride him. 

In the US when democracy is stifled by a conservative section of the government, people who protest are very civilized. There’s a lot of expression of outrage and frustration but no violence, which is good, and no real action, which isn’t so good. Essentially those who want to see change believe they have to wait until the next election and work hard to wake the masses up to the importance of voting. Overt military takeovers are prohibited, and that’s very good. It’s government of the people by the people. Or it’s supposed to be.

But although we hold onto the theory of democracy, that we are the ones with the power, we don’t really claim it fully. And in reality we place all the responsibility on elected leaders. You fix this. But that can be impossible for a leader when sectors of opposition parties that have gained power through non-democratic means create a stranglehold, as Congress has done since 2008. Who’s got the power then? 

Whoever controls that sector and in today’s world it’s corporate interest, which is the antithesis of true democracy. Either this happens or elected leaders break promises they never had any intention of keeping. So something’s wrong with the way we do democracy in the West.

Egyptians have shown us again what democracy in action really looks like. Last night CNN had live coverage of the phenomenal celebrations in Tahrir Square, with anchors and reporters speaking to various Egyptians about the impending change in government. All of them were asking the question – is this a military coup and isn’t it contrary to democracy? Nobody spoke to a representative of the Muslim Brotherhood while I was watching, and no doubt if they had the answer would have been categorically yes.

They would have been wrong, though. Democracy is about the will of the people and the majority rules. When Mursi was elected a large number of Egyptians hadn’t participated in the elections. He won the vote, but it wasn’t the will of the majority. 

About 13 million voted for him. About 12 million voted for his rival, Independent Ahmed Shafik. But voter turnout was just over 50%. A lot of the people who opposed Mursi didn’t vote. Which is also a democratic right. Does it mean they have no voice? No. 22 million signed a petition to get rid of him. That’s true democracy in action. It’s what we don’t often do in the West.  

This wasn’t a military coup. It was about deposing an elected leader who wasn’t doing his job well and who broke his election promises. It was about unseating a party that had been trying to gain power for 85 years and piggy-backed on a revolution and, with Mursi’s blessing, commandeered democracy. Rational demands were made on Mursi. He refused to listen. So a petition was started. When even that had no effect, many of those 22 million took to the streets and voted with their feet.

When politicians behave like outlaws in the West we complain but do nothing. In reality it means all bets are off. You push me around and I must take it lying down? Not if I’m an Egyptian! 

I understand the fear of the military playing any role in this. I don’t like it either. Especially that military, even though many of the old generals are gone. But Egyptians got rid of the Junta that had no integrity and absolute power. They got rid of Mubarak and Mursi. They’ll do it again if this military steps out of line. 

It isn’t civilized in the way that we know in the West. But democracy is an organic animal and this era is about the people educating themselves, learning to flex their muscles and take responsibility for holding leaders accountable. In Egypt it’s very clear that leaders have two options: pay attention and do your job properly or you’re out. We could do with some of that in the West. Imagine if Democrats banded together like this. In the last election there were about 63 million registered Democrats, 47 million Republicans, and 32 million Independents. And Congress is controlled by a group of Republicans that aren’t even representative of their own party.

Egyptians deserve congratulations for what they’ve achieved. Most remarkable to me is what they achieve without violence. When the first revolution happened, so much of the media reflected Western gloom and doom for the country. The same thing is happening again along with Egyptians don’t understand how democracy works. It’s not true, though. They understand it better than we do. When you take action you’re bound to make mistakes but that’s how you learn.