No public debates on Syria, please, we’re American!
The US regularly lectures the world on the virtues of democracy, yet the Obama administration is preparing to launch a military offensive against Syria while arrogantly denying the American people a democratic open debate - British-style - on the matter.
On Thursday, the British subjects of Her Majesty the Queen were treated to a lively, no-holds-barred debate in the House of Commons as to whether the UK should participate in a military strike on Syria over the suspected use of chemical weapons. One day later, the “free” American people were treated to a monologue performance by Secretary of State John Kerry, who practically confirmed that military action against Damascus was a foregone conclusion.
The display of 'free speech' between these two political systems
could not have been more striking.
“We know where the rockets were launched from, and at what
time. We know where they landed, and when. We know rockets came
only from regime-controlled areas and went only to
opposition-controlled or contested neighborhoods,” the
all-knowing Kerry said, reading an 18-minute, prepared speech on
Friday. (And no, he didn’t take any questions from reporters.)
And that was pretty much the extent of the American “debate” on
Syria: The White House rolled out an “unassailable”
intelligence report, and this is supposed to silence all debate
and dissent on the matter. The American people, denied the
opportunity to hear an honest political debate on whether to jump
into another war, have no other recourse - much like the Syrian
people - but to wait and see what happens.
This is becoming a very disturbing trend: The only time the
American people really have an opportunity to hold a democratic
debate on the question of military adventures is after the boots
have already hit the ground. This type of backwards behavior is
nothing more than a pale shadow of democracy, speaking out on a
subject when the words no longer carry any weight.
On the other side of the Atlantic, while America was still fast
asleep, British PM David Cameron suffered a “humiliating
defeat” in the Commons following a riveting parliamentary
debate that permitted a number of colorful opinions – even the
most radical – to be voiced.
“It’s absolutely evident that were it not for the democratic
revolt…against this war the (fighter jet) engines in Cyprus would
now be revving and the cruise missiles ready to fly this very
weekend,” railed George Galloway, Respect Party MP on
Thursday.
Galloway, who reminded his audience that the Syrian president was
once an overnight guest at Buckingham Palace, asked if it would
really be in the interests of the Syrian government to launch a
chemical weapons attack in Damascus “on the very day that a
United Nations chemical weapons inspection team arrives in
Damascus?”
It is exactly these kinds of questions that need to be
articulated in the United States before we start another debacle
in the desert. After all, Syrian President Bashar Assad, who has
given exceedingly polite interviews with the likes of Barbara
Walters to get his views across, does not seem like the type of
individual who would intentionally destroy his international
reputation at the exact moment he needs it the most.
Following the House of Common’s narrow 285-272 vote not to join
in an attack on Syria, British media noted it was “the first
time a British prime minister had lost a vote on war since
1782.” However, Cameron should be applauded for respecting
the will of the British people and accepting his defeat with
honor.
To better understand the twisted mentality behind America’s
impulsiveness to jump into military conflicts, here is what
Charles Krauthammer had to say on the British vote.
“This is a complete humiliation for the Obama
administration,” Krauthammer wailed on Fox News. “Who's
the main ally in the world who has been with us in every trench
for the last 100 years? The British. And now the British have
voted against us.”
But wait: The British did not vote “against us.” They
voted in the interests of the British people, which I suspect is
what generally happens during every parliamentary session. It is
seriously doubtful that British MPs get voted into office on the
basis of how they supported their American brothers and sisters
across the pond. Clearly, there remains an influential part of
the US punditry class that continues to pledge allegiance to
George W. Bush's mad maxim, "You're either with us or you're
against us."
Krauthammer, and others like him, is dropping rhetorical smoke
bombs to cover up the real travesty gripping the heartland: The
total and complete absence of open and transparent democratic
debate on matters related to war and peace.
Yet, according to Kerry, any public deliberations involving the
findings of the intelligence report would risk leaking
“sources and methods.” In other words, it is considered
more dangerous to discuss our intelligence findings (perhaps a
simple video of the rocket launches?) than it is to start another
war in the Middle East. Thus, following this impeccable logic,
the bulk of the Syrian intelligence “will only be released to
members of Congress.”
Once again, the American people are being asked - or rather
forced - to place their complete faith and trust in our leaders
to make the right decisions behind closed doors. In other words,
“open military operations, closed democratic procedure.”
Welcome to the New World of US foreign policy. The American
people, however, have been burned by faulty intelligence reports
once before and would be foolish to let it happen again.
In February 2003, then Secretary of State Colin Powell
controversially shook a vial of 'anthrax' on the floor of the UN
as he attempted to build a case for war against Iraq and its
(non-existent) weapons of mass destruction. One month later,
George W. Bush gave the imperial nod for a full-scale invasion
against Iraq, a disastrous conflict that resulted in the death of
hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Following this
fiasco, the American people should expect nothing less than a
fully transparent hearing on any future military entanglements.
However, Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama, much like the
Bush administration he condemned on the campaign trail, sees no
reason why he needs congressional approval, not to mention a
British-style public debate, on the question of attacking Syria,
a sovereign state.
As Voice of America reported: “Pressed about calls for
congressional authorization, White House spokesman Jay Carney
Tuesday indicated the president believes consulting with
congressional leaders is enough.”
Meanwhile, on Friday a sixth US warship quietly slipped into the
Mediterranean, joining up with five US destroyers armed with
cruise missiles that could soon be directed against Syria as part
of a "limited, precise" strike.
Perhaps this is what they really meant by “democracy in
action.”
Robert Bridge, RT
Bridge is the author of the book, Midnight in the American Empire, which examines the dangerous consequences of extreme corporate power in the United States.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.