The Syrian dilemna

Article

The Middle East: Where American Political Idealism Goes to Die

Still against Intervention in Syria

Bombing Syria: Six reasons why we shouldn't have

Trump's Dangerous Syria Missile Strike

So You Want To Go To War In Syria To Depose Assad. Can You Answer These 14 Questions First?

The Case for Strikes In Syria Is Better Than The Case For War

Summary

Lots of conservative opinion against intervention in Syria. Concerns range from there being no strategic interest for the U.S. to a war there will be too difficult to win.

Quote

"The U.S. attack is an impulsive intervention in a civil war in which both sides — the Damascus/Tehran/Moscow alliance and its Sunni-jihadist/sharia-supremacist opposition — are hostile to the United States. It is a war in which Bashar al-Assad’s continuation in power, dismal as that prospect may be, is in no way the worst conceivable outcome for American national security."

Andrew McCarthy

Understanding

There are competing strains of thought at play in conservative opinion.

Interventionists proclaim -

• America is back
• Obama is gone
• The U.S. is destined to enforce morality on the world order
• Showing force is good

Nationalists assert -

• There is no benefit to us
• Trump is inconsistent
• We can't win
• We don't know who we are we helping

This debate might be the epitome of a first-world problem. Our power and geographic distance from war zones give us an option to pick and choose. Our position removed from the fray comes with a heavy intellectual and moral burden, but we get to decide whereas victims in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan.... etc. can only hunker down or flee.

How can we look away? How can we send soldiers to die?  The answer depends on our vision for our country. America first and forever?  America the last best hope for the world?

Moral leadership with cruise missiles

Article

Trump air strikes tell Syria's Assad the game is up on chemical weapons

Summary

A Fox News commentator applauds Pres. Trump's decision to attack a Syrian air base. He asserts it was the perfect balance of "kinetic response and forward-leaning diplomacy."

Quote

"President Trump appears to be reasserting American moral leadership, as President Reagan once did.  This event boldly called him out, and we should all be glad it did. He apparently heard the call, did not hesitate, did not over or under calibrate, and did not tweet."

Understanding

What are the consequences of using cruise missiles to assert moral leadership?  The strike will affirm for those who believe in American exceptionalism that we are fulfilling our unique mission to transform the world. There will be a bounce for Pres. Trump's approval rating. The calculations in diplomatic conversations with Russia and China will include our renewed willingness to use military force. North Korea will be inflamed. Assad and his supporters will pause and ponder how far will Pres. Trump go in pursuit of Syrian regime change?.

Cruise missiles are a limited tool. Moral leadership will come from a range of sustained, consistent actions grounded in significant principles.

The questions are more important than the answers the missiles delivered. Can we pursue American exceptionalism without hubris? Can we moderate our use of force to be appropriate for specific objectives? Can we avoid going so far down the road of aggression that we have no way back to stability?

The role of religion in politics

Article

The Left Can Cite Scripture for its Own Purpose

Summary

Ben Shapiro believes liberals select bible passages to justify their policies, but they don't actually believe in the faith. They believe in government.

Quote

"This is the theocracy of the casually religious — and it’s even less attractive than the theocracy of the Biblically extreme. At least the Biblically radical have a textbook guiding them; leftist theocrats merely follow the dictates of their own heart, imputing those dictates to God when the opportunity arises. This makes them not merely tyrants, but heretical tyrants at that."

Understanding

First, let's all tread lightly with the sweeping generalizations about intent and motivation when it comes to individual faith, morality  and ethics. You don't know me Mr. Shapiro but I am one of those liberal Christians you criticize and your narrow stereotyping of me weakens your argument.

I do appreciate the opportunity to consider the relationship between religion and politics. The Founders famously separated church from state. Contemporary conservatives offer religious practice as the alternative to government social welfare. They advocate that church volunteers can replace entitlement programs.

My practice in a faith community doesn't give me confidence that we are viable substitutes for professional social workers or publicly-funded safety nets. My practice in a faith community has enriched, grown and sustained qualities that help me appreciate the awesomeness of being and love my neighbor as myself.

That consciousness informs my values and political positions. I don't have to find proof-texts from scripture to justify my stands if I stand with integrity.

Playground rules

Article

Mitch McConnell: GOP evening the score by using the nuclear option for Gorsuch

Summary

The Senate Majority Leader told Fox News that the nuclear option is payback for Democrats breaking the rules of the Senate in 2013.

Quote

"I think they’re responding to their base, which says ‘Resist everything.’ It’s particularly ridiculous to watch it on Gorsuch because there are no good arguments to vote against Gorsuch. None whatsoever."

Understanding

So we've come to this? This is statesmanship? The Senate of the United States functions like a middle school playground?

Republicans want to get even for something that happened four years ago. Democrats want to show Republicans they should have given Merrick Garland a hearing. The consequence of their bickering is flushing checks and balances down the drain and throwing bipartisanship out the window.

Resist. Persist. It is so much easier to say 'no' than 'yes.'  So much easier to obstruct than construct. The most courageous senator will not be the one who filibusters for 10 hours. The most courageous senator will be the one who steps across the aisle for a conversation.

Create a solution not an enemy

Article

Righteous and Wrong

Summary

National Review reporter Jim Geraghty points out that too many political arguments boil down to the idea that "the real problem is those people."

Quote

"This is a key lesson learned in relationship therapy, workplace team-building exercises, and the like: “It’s not you against me; it’s you and me against the problem.” Unfortunately, too many on both sides of the aisle can’t internalize it."

Understanding

The worldview of the Left and the worldview of the Right can be so far apart, it seems impossible to find any common ground as the basis for pragmatic problem-solving. Even sitting down together to really listen and understand appears to be an unacceptable compromise of principles.

Principles do not have to be compromised to collaborate. Forego the hate speech, set aside the powerplay. Discover what we share in common and build a solution from what we both hold dear.

Let's be realistic about Islam

Article

Secularism is No Match for Radical Islam

Summary

Father Benedict Kiely, a Catholic priest, suggests Christians should strive to convert Muslims in order to defeat their violent faith.

Quote

"What drives a former criminal to commit acts of murder and destruction is exactly what drove Islamic militants to wreak the destruction that I witnessed in Iraq — it was my fourth visit there — and that continues to drive them all over the world. It is not, as we are relentlessly told by the experts, an “ideology” that must be “combated.” It is commitment to the faith of Islam, albeit a particular form of the faith." 

Understanding

Words can't describe the horror that is ISIS, but to equate them with Islam is like saying the Westboro Baptist Church represents Christianity. Exaggerating their threat to peace in the West is the kind of argument that launched the Crusades.

Let's keep a level-headed, realistic perspective.

Learning by example

Article

Throw Away the New Playbook

Summary

Jonah Goldberg writing in the National Review argues that Pres. Trump needs to start adhering to tried and true political practices to have a successful presidency.

Quote

"The simple fact is that new playbooks, like new ideas, are as a statistical matter more likely to be wrong than right (there are literally an infinite number of “ideas”; there is a very finite number of good, practical ideas). The essence of conservatism is to respect practices, customs, norms, and values that have survived the brutal acid of trial and error. “What is conservatism?” Lincoln asked. “Is it not the adherence to the old and tried against the new and untried?”"

Understanding

Goldberg suggests that political systems are like weather systems in that both are aggregations of specific acts of nature or self-interest accumulated into a pervasive, indifferent force.  Both the Left and the Right are delusional to think that, in the case of the Left, a high-minded intellectual principle will change reality; or, in the case of the Right, a businessman can cut a deal that will alter nature.

Perhaps the cold, hard reality of his administration's struggles will cause Pres. Trump to re-evaluate his approach and improve his ability to govern. Blindly defending him doesn't help him get there, nor does heated opposition.

The country needs reasonable debate now more than ever.