If I had a pound for every time I get told, “something must be done” – about something – I would be a rich man. The trouble is, however, that the phrase only ever gets used when the speaker has not the first idea what might be done, what should be done or what will be done. It is a cry of abdication or helplessness.
It is a cry that has gone up many times in the last couple of weeks. Something must be done about Syria. But, what exactly… and to what end?
- Something to save the lives of innocent children?
- Something to save the lives of innocent children from chemical attack?
- Something to save the lives of innocent children from any form of violent attack?
- Something to save the lives of innocent children from a future shaped by sectarian hatred, rage and revenge?
Well, I guess we are back to the questions of achievability touched on in my last post on Syria. What seems clear to me is that a justification for military intervention must be rooted in more than a humanitarian sense of emotional helplessness or anger at impotence. It is appalling to watch human suffering on such a scale – and brought to our living rooms on various screens – but it is equally appalling to create further suffering by intervening in a way that salves the conscience of the outside agent whilst simply complicating the contortions within the country itself.
I have to confess both to ignorance of the detail being discussed in Washington and Paris and to the technical capacity of the military to reduce the capability of Assad’s forces to repeat or continue chemical attacks (presumably we are OK with them just doing normal – that is, ‘conventional’ -bombing, shooting, torture and butchery?). However, I cannot yet see how a ‘surgical’ intervention cannot but complicate the civil war being waged inside the country. One of the lessons of Iraq (the circumstances of which I accept are not comparable, but the potential consequences of which might be) is that it is impossible to whack in and whack out, leaving the internal parties then to sort everything out. Intervention is intervention – and the whole nature of the business changes immediately and for ever.
(I realise this is a slightly unfortunate segue, but it is a bit like church congregations not realising that more people joining the church does not make the church ‘the same but bigger’, but, rather, radically changes the church – because rather than ‘they joining us’, ‘we together’ are now a different company and culture. One new person changes the whole.)
Any intervention into Syria – however necessary or justified – will change everything. A single US missile attack will change everything. The US Congress might well decide this is necessary, appropriate and justifiable. They must, however, recognise that a swift ‘hit ’em hard’, ‘mission accomplished’ ‘in and out’ intervention is a fantasy. As Niall Ferguson wrote about the USA (either in Colossus or Empire), if it is an empire, it must behave like an empire. Americans might hate the notion of being imperial, but if that is what they are being (by policing the world in this way), then they must put away simplistic notions of consequence-free ‘surgical strikes’ that bring no further obligations. To do an imperial thing without an imperial mindset or willingness to take on imperial responsibilities is to guarantee long-term and more complicated consequences.
This morning we hear that Damascus and Moscow are laughing down their sleeves at UK and US ‘weakness’. Let them laugh. Morality and justice are not the stuff of the school playground where being called names is the essential spur to retributive action. Better to get it right than to get it quick – or react out of mere pique.
It is all easy to say, sitting here in autumnal England. I don’t feel the flesh of the dead and dying in Syria. But, the suffering will not be ended by western action; and we cannot simply run away from the agony of helplessness that comes from recognising that ‘we’ can’t fix everything or make the pain stop. This civil war will take decades to work through.
The least we can do is apply popular pressure for increased diplomatic engagement. And fund whatever aid we can. And, for those who believe that prayer changes those doing the praying, – committing them to the consequences of their prayers – we must pray. If “something must be done” at all, then let that ‘something’ be right, achievable, moral and effective. There is more at stake here than the international standing of particular countries or the political stature of particular politicians – or is this less about Syrian people and more about international political hubris?
September 1, 2013 at 12:38 pm
Thank you.
September 1, 2013 at 1:57 pm
Reducing Assad’s capacity (and that of any rogue commanders) to gas people looks like a good objective, and one which might command more support now than is assumed, and may yet grow:
http://yougov.co.uk/news/authors/peter.kellner/
It’s time to serve notice on the states which have not signed the 1993 UN Chemical Weapons convention that sanctions are in the offing: Egypt, Israel, Syria, S Sudan, Angola, Myanamar, N Korea.
If enough tell @WilliamJHague he may take it up.
September 1, 2013 at 2:23 pm
quietzaple, thanks for response. The problem is how to “serve notice” when Russia, China, North Korea, etc. won’t join in the pressure.
September 1, 2013 at 2:47 pm
I know it’s a boring cliché, but all the previous Western meddling is coming home to roost like chickens. Non of what is happening is as simple as what we are often made to believe. I read today that the rebels have received a massive shipment of weapons through Turkey. This isn’t going help anyone is it? Well, nobody with the same concerns we have, I’m not sure about people who share the same financial philosophy as Tony Blair. There’s too many outside agendas using Syria as game board. It’s utter delusion to imagine that the USA are simply concerned about toxic gas. I suspect that the psychology involved in Thursday’s defeated parliamentary motion is mostly based upon suspicion, suspicion that we are being emotionally employed as useful idiots.
I share your frustrations because I don’t have any answers other than to insist that cruise missiles are definitely not one that will help children in Syria.
September 1, 2013 at 2:57 pm
[…] This blog was in response, and mostly in agreement with the recently published Something must be done… on Nick Baine’s Blog. […]
September 1, 2013 at 3:00 pm
I have answered this, at some length, on my own blog. http://stevenhpape.wordpress.com/2013/09/01/syria-between-iraq-and-a-hard-place/
September 1, 2013 at 4:22 pm
Thank you for this thoughtful and measured blog post, Bishop Nick. You say similar things to points made by Simon Jenkins in The Guardian on Friday. Christian Aid and clerics from Syria both say that any military intervention will make things worse. For me, the Christ like thing to do is to try to mitigate the agony in any way we can through diplomatic pressure and humanitarian aid, and to share the agony of impotence.
September 1, 2013 at 4:26 pm
Thanks, balaam. Interesting post and develops thinking.
September 1, 2013 at 5:06 pm
Thank you, Nick. Wise and measured words as always.
September 1, 2013 at 6:58 pm
What’s interesting about the phrase ‘something must be done’ is that Edward VIII never said it. What he said was ‘something will be done’. The first is easily said, because it expresses internal obligation. The second expresses the will and power to do something. On Syria, we need to express more than a forlorn hope. We need a definite commitment to action. It’s just a question of what and when. This is what Obama has now decided, and Britain has time to respond, but not, I hope, in supporting air strikes.
September 1, 2013 at 9:03 pm
Sorry Nick, I cannot have made myself clear, using my phone I’m terse.
I think that cruise missiles plus perhaps the SAS (who may already have been in Syria when the vote was prematurely taken) can disable a fair part of Assad (and any rogue commanders) capability to use chemical wepaons, obviously via destroying the rockets, who knows how else?
Offering the other nations not to have signed the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 a final reminder prior to sanctions of some kind is mostly a separate issue.
But it would have the extra merit of saying we treat all states which do not ban Chemical Weapons as pariahs. We do not want to victimise Syria, a predominantly muslim nation favoured by Russia.
September 1, 2013 at 10:36 pm
Bishop, I believe prayer changes those doing the praying. And I hear your call to prayer. I think this is the most important point you make.
September 1, 2013 at 10:41 pm
Quietzaple, thanks again. I think I had understood your point. I am not convinced that sanctions will work when Syria (and other non-signatory states) will be backed on principle by China and Russia. It is like when people appeal to the ‘international community’ as if (a) it is actually an identifiable community and (b) doesn’t include countries such as China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, etc. I take your point, but can’t cash it out into achievable outcomes.
September 1, 2013 at 10:56 pm
A helpful measured think piece. Patrick Cockburn’s article in today’s Independent on Sunday provides one of the most helpful explications of the multiple conflicts taking place in Syria today and the possible consequences of limited or more substantial intervention.
September 2, 2013 at 4:36 am
Thanks. Sanctions applied by a significant number of states which have signed the 1993 UN Chemical Weapons Convention, albeit not including signatories like Russia and China, may well bring some non signatories into line. The former communist dictatorships don’t want to bankroll every possible satellite, which is why Cuba’s MIGs were grounded in the 1990s. Israel and Egypt like to be thought of as civilised, those who’ve not given up the prospect of gassing children are not.
Those countries which do mean our opposition to gassing children would emphasise our stance. And the leadership of such would be less concentrated, which is part of the problem which begins when the UK is distanced from the proposed military action and the USA and France seem alone.
Those countries which applied agreed sanctions would be a self selected international community of grace it seems to me. Virtue may well be its own reward, but it’s not unheard of other advantages – however unintended – to follow.
I’d like to think this proposal is outside my usual imperialist mindset?
September 2, 2013 at 1:05 pm
First of All Nick, thank God for your Clarity. Would that it were available on the National Health and imprinted upon every government memo and become a part of the human psyche…meanwhile re: Syria, ‘we’, and/or the ‘powers that be’ continue to turn a blind eye, as you say, to the lessons Of history, whilst many aspects of the Media are blighted by bias, despite assertions from the likes of Fox News that they are ‘fair and balanced’ .
There are too many dodgy agendas at play in this crisis, religious, political, and of course corporate, that have nothing to do with the obvious, pressing humanitarian agenda alluded to in these responses. Kerry can bleat about the “moral obscenity” of the use Of chemical weapons, but does that make drones OK? When you;re dead you’re dead. It is all mind boggling and hugely frustrating.
As I watched our house burn last December ( we are now safely re-installed BTW) and the fire crews working tirelessly as a team for our benefit, I recalled your blog post Croydon riots, in which you suggested that all Humanity needs is a “new narrative” based on Service…that our attitude towards each other be a reflection of “the God who Serves us”. I watched this being demonstrated by those firemen on that tumultuous night, mindful that at that moment, in Syria and Palestine, people were destroying each others’ homes and lives ON PURPOSE. In my heart I wished for the attitude of these crews to become the model everywhere…
The BASIC solutions, such as the one put forward in that “Croydon” blog, are simple. But as Pete Townsend sang back In the 60s “The simple things you see are all complicated.”
September 3, 2013 at 9:59 am
This just in on my Facebook page:
A message from former Congressman Dennis Kucinich ..
Eleven years ago I warned America we were about to get into a war based on lies. I led 125 members of Congress to oppose the Iraq War resolution. When I raised questions then, some of our leading Senators, such as John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards voted yes. The media was squarely behind the war. I was attacked for questioning the cause of war. Everything I said in October of 2002 as to why we should not go to war turned out to be 100% true. Many of those who were 100% wrong have continued in Congress or gone on to greater influence in government. And America? America lost 4,488 sons and daughters, with 32,021 wounded at a cost which is approaching $6 Trillion dollars.
Today we are poised to engage in war against Syria with such a flimsy case being made to attempt to justify an attack, it could only be the product of cynicism and willful misrepresentation in the cause of war and a callous disregard for our true national interest.
FACT: There is no definitive proof that Syria’s Assad knew of and directed the chemical weapons attack on August 21st..
FACT: Intelligence which overheard Syrian military officials discussing the attack far from implicating them, finds them DENYING they initiated an attack.
FACT: There are at least two instances where the opposition is said to have used chemical weapons. One incident, which occurred in March was referred to the Security Council by Russia. Another, which occurred in April was cited by special UN investigator Carla Del Ponte.
FACT: Some rockets identified near attack sites were described as “homemade”.
FACT: A coordinated effort was made by US officials to DISCOURAGE a full UN investigation.
FACT: The biggest beneficiary of the attack on the Syrian government is Al Queda, which leads the opposition,
FACT: Syria is not an imminent threat to the United States.
FACT: Absent an imminent or actual threat to the United States, only Congress has the authority, under the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, to declare war.
Whatever we believe about Syria, as Americans, let us all believe in our Constitution, in the rule of law, and in the bedrock of principles which inform our rights and responsibilities as a nation. We have a right to defend ourselves, but no right to war aggressive war. Our obligation as citizens is not to be a member of the Democratic, Republican or an independent party, but to be a party to the truth.
I am concerned, that once again, in the name of humanity, an inhumane act of war is about to be committed against the people of a distant land, compounding their tragedy; in the name of security, a barbaric attack will be launched which will make us all less secure; and in the name of the United States, in our name, the destructive power of war will be unleashed based on the hubris of exceptionalism which left untamed, will destroy our own nation.
I will discuss what must be done in our next communication. Thank you, Dennis
September 3, 2013 at 8:14 pm
The notion that something must be done may be pretty feeble as an aphorism: that nothing useful can be done is still more illegitimate. Kant’s categorical imperative applies: Thou Shalt.
And as per Iraq and Afghanistan we have to consider the alternatives and their most likely consequences.
September 6, 2013 at 9:29 am
thanks Nick. I have tried to explore some of the wider issues on my blog too
http://www.psephizo.com/life-ministry/what-we-should-do-about-syria/
September 7, 2013 at 8:49 am
http://blog.newfred.com/2013/08/some-remarks-on-debate-over.html
On the UN point: if an intervention is morally right or wrong, it is morally right or wrong regardless of the UN’s divisions and machinations. I hope one day the UN will be a body that can consistently align itself with what is right and wrong. Until that day comes, though, there are still human rights abuses to be prevented.
September 7, 2013 at 9:51 am
As John Simpson pointed out the other day it is unlikely that Assad has complete control of his commanders.
If we tolerate this “our” children will be next.
Putin’s Russia has opponents, in Chechnya perhaps, who may also be in line for what is becoming tolerated chemical warfare. Cheap WMD, easier than nukes.