Thinking about Syria: what derailed the rush to war?

by Berry Friesen Berry f

Five times in the past 23 years, we have seen an unprovoked U.S. rush to war against a Muslim nation.

After a period of preparation in which the political leadership of the targeted nation is demonized, something bloody and barbaric is reported to have occurred there.  The response by Western media is quick, strong and persistent: the government of the targeted nation is responsible for the atrocity.   Public officials across the Western world denounce what has happened as “beyond the pale” for civilized societies and demand action.  Images of an atrocity fill our screens. Opinion leaders from the think tanks, academia, even Hollywood gravely weigh in with reluctant endorsement of retaliation because – to their great regret – the Muslim leaders in question are irrational. References to Hitler” and “appeasement” pop up in news clips and op-eds.  Public polling confirms what the people on TV have been saying:  if we are to remain true to our principles, we must make war.

In 1990, it was Kuwaiti incubator babies thrown to the floor by Saddam’s troops and Iraqi troops massing on the Saudi border. In 2001, it was the Taliban’s refusal to arrest bin Laden and turn him over for prosecution.  In 2003, it was chemical “weapons of mass destruction” Saddam was preparing to use on his neighbors.  In 2011, it was the practice of mass rape Gaddafi’s army and the imminent massacre of the residents of Benghazi.  In 2013, it was Assad’s murder of civilians (and many children) in the Damascus suburbs with sarin gas.

On each of the first four of these occasions, the story was false but served to energize the rush to war anyway.  We didn’t learn until later that it was a lie.  In the most recent iteration involving Syria, we do not yet know if the story was true or false.  What we do know is that the rush to war has been derailed.

So why didn’t formula work with Syria?  Why hasn’t Assad been deposed like the Afghan Taliban, Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi before him?  Certainly many factors contributed.  But the core reason is pretty clear:  the public opposed it.

Watching all of this unfold brought several realities into clearer focus.

  • Political strength does not require millions out in the streets demonstrating.  It can manifest itself quietly via polling, emails to members of Congress, “War is Not the Answer” signs in the front yard, and conversations among neighbors.  Although Washington and its network of contractors and power-seekers are wired for war, their bandwagon can be stopped when a strong majority disagrees.
  • Anti-war sentiment is much more prevalent when it is not perceived to be aligned with a particular partisan position.  In the case of Syria, “Tea-Party” Republicans were particularly outspoken against war; they were openly joined by liberal Democrats.  Together, this created enough space for many people to join the dissent.
  • Alternative media via the Internet have begun playing a significant role in shaping public opinion via increased on-the-scene reporting and the publication of critical views.  As a result, efforts by officials and mainstream opinion leaders to stigmatize those views as “conspiracy theories” are not working as well.  Increasingly, those beating the drum for war find it necessary to pause and respond to the questions and concerns being raised.  In the case of Syria, this slowed the rush to war and strengthened the opposition.

For peace activists, three lessons follow these realities:

  1. Work to define our opposition to war as a bi-partisan alternative; reach out across the political spectrum to unlikely allies and expect their support.
  2. Invest in the alternative media by contributing to its support, digesting its reporting, and following its links to foreign news services.  The evidence “on location” will always be a mixed bag but in this age of Western imperialism, often it will undermine the rush to war.  We must communicate those facts to the public.  Among people who do not claim to be pacifists, war is always driven by a morally compelling story.  If we can raise substantial questions about the truthfulness of that story, the rush to war will lose its momentum.
  3. Commit the great majority of our energy to communicating with the general public.  Washington and its network of sycophants have made their preference for war abundantly clear; we won’t change that any time soon.  But many people in our local communities do not share that preference; they should be our primary audience.

8 thoughts on “Thinking about Syria: what derailed the rush to war?

    • How true. One wonders what would happen if we would spend more time in prayer and fasting. Thank you for your comment.

  1. One caution: we should not have to deny the occurrence of an atrocity in order to maintain that war is not the answer. If we make a pro-peace position dependent on an enemy’s innocence, we will miss the larger point on the need to break out of the cycle of violence.

    • Thank you for your reply. In the article, the author clearly states, “In the most recent iteration involving Syria, we do not yet know if the story was true or false. What we do know is that the rush to war has been derailed.” The author is not denying that an atrocity has occurred. At the time of the article not enough was known about whether it had happened. The author’s point is that often so-called atrocities are used as a basis for further “atrocities” – ie the use of violence against the alleged perpetrator (which often involves more killing of civilians). Fortunately in this instance the rush to war was “derailed.” The easiest way to break out of the cycle of violence is quite simply not to do violence. You are correct in saying that a pro-peace peace position is not based on an enemy’s innocence. We are to love them regardless. Feel free to comment more if you further thoughts. Blessings.

      • Sorry if I sounded like I was accusing him of anything. I’m just wary of the temptation to play the game of determining who the good guys and bad guys are, when clearly there are no “good guys” in the Syrian conflict (as there really never are in war). It seemed to me from the article like Friesen was holding any critique of Assad at arm’s length, which I didn’t think was necessary and could even be counterproductive to the cause of peace. I couldn’t agree more on the wrongness of using atrocities as a basis for further atrocities. That’s all the more reason to fully acknowledge the brutality of every part of the cycle of violence.

        Since “ahemahem” above mentioned the pope, I will add that his witness in this situation, and that of the US bishops, was exemplary. Both utterly condemned the use of chemical weapons while just as firmly insisting on the need for nonviolent, humanitarian solutions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s