History News Network puts current events into historical perspective. Subscribe to our newsletter for new perspectives on the ways history continues to resonate in the present. Explore our archive of thousands of original op-eds and curated stories from around the web. Join us to learn more about the past, now.
Whatever window dressing and verbiage and pretense they present to the public, Syria is our enemy. They have acted as our enemy for years. They are probably the single-biggest state sponsor of terrorism in the world, with their fingers demonstrably in the Hezbollah AND Hamas pies, and with enough links to al Qaeda (admittedly more often sins of omission than commission, which is hardly a rousing defense) to make a reasonable person think that Syria, not Iraq, should have been first on the post-Afghanistan hit list. Syria has provided refuge for Iraq’s murderous Baath party officials. Syria has long advocated wiping Israel off the face of the planet. We've coddled Damascas for too long. Syria is an enemy. Now maybe we can begin treating it as such.
Actually since Syria - with access to the Mediterranean Sea - is not a landlocked country, it would have to be turned into a bay rather than a lake.
Ralph E. Luker -
5/27/2005
Five-fold was Niall Ferguson's estimate of the necessary increase, not mine, and it is based on: a) the more relatively successful British occupation of Iraq 85 years ago; b) the development on civil war in Iraq under American occupation; c) the admission by American generals that the civil war probably means that, at current troop levels, the United States will have to remain in Iraq for "years to come" in order to prevail; and d) the principle that one really ought to clean up one's current mess before spreading the mess to additional countries (you still haven't told us how many more).
Your policy recommendations cannot be made in a vacuum. They have to assume the prior occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan because, whether you like it or not, that ties down just about all available forces and, almost certainly and realistically, requires more than you or Bush are willing to commit.
Look back at what you said: the United States had "coddled" Syria because it tolerated its existence as a nation/state since its independence. The presumption of it. The United States is empowered to decide what nation/states shall be allowed to exist. Given the American generals' acknowledgement, what you are effectively advocating is that Syria be denied status as a nation/state and reduced to yet another territory occupied by American troops, the source of which you don't identify. Dreams of colonial empire ...
Derek Charles Catsam -
5/27/2005
Ralph --
What "elemental failure" are you talking about? Because the Bush administration might have muishandled Iraq as far as troop levels and such does not mean that in an ideal world one does not advocate a crackdown on Syria. And one can crackdown on Syria without the utterly arbitrary "fivefold" figure, which even critics of the administration have not argued for Iraq, never mind an invasion of Syria I never actuially advocated. (So lewt's get this straight -- my lack of a level of expertise that I never claimed hinges on your making numbers up out of thin air?)
I also find it funny how you can feign disdain over being accused of defending the Syrian dictatorship, an allegged accusation that only came after you claimed that I advocated "there's obviously nothing left to do but to destroy Syria as a nation-state. Make a lake of it, perhaps, or a nuclear wasteland." So let's get this straight -- you misrepresent my views, and then take umbrage at me allegedly doing so to you afterward even though your solution, which is to say your utter presentation of any solution at all, would leave the dictatorship you so claim to loathe intact? It must be nice to consign people to life under a thugocracy and then care to claim deeply about them through inaction.
And then after proclaiming what I am and am not qualified to write or talk about, which I responded to at length (I'd say justifiably so; but criticizing someone for long comments on their own blog seems rather uncharitable; I'll be on the lookout for only brief responses on Cliopatria), you toss out a cheap shot not only at me, but also at another reader who has nothing to do with this discussion.
Priceless.
dc
Ralph E. Luker -
5/27/2005
dc is overly sensitive and getting Chris Pettit long-winded. Thanks for admitting that I didn't defend a Syrian dictatorship, after accusing me of having done so. Try figuring out how we can multiply troop levels in Iraq five-fold before you advocate additional invasions. It's that kind of elemental failure that calls your expertise into question, not my arbitration.
Derek Charles Catsam -
5/27/2005
Ralph --
I don't claim anything. I write and publish in a range of areas, have received the fellowships, grants and forums to do so, and cannot help but wonder why anyone who would have their own blog in which they cover an array of topics would aver that when someone else does it, it is under false pretenses. I certainly have no idea why Ralph would underline _well informed_ unless to ay that i am not. That is an odd assertion to make that ought to carry with it certain evidentiary standards. It seems that my middle east observations have been good enough for FDD and for History News Service and for newspapers that have carried my work. I do not know how many Muslim states we need to invade. maybe none more, because as i have said, and thought I made clear, there are approaches that nation states can make outside of invqasion, though when necessary, we do that when circumstances dictate. That you are limited in your scope does not mean that others are in theirs. If you think i am not well informed on the Middle East or Africa, Ralph, I would welcome any examples of that coming from my writings (please have it be more substantial than your picayune semantics over the use of the word "coddling." You are the king of smearing others on HNN but i am not putting up with it over here. So put up or shut up -- if you think I am not informed, you have to show where the things I have written reveal as much. And you decided to bring up the Middle East, Africa, terrorism etc. into this. i write about things that I know. You try to do the same. i find it bizarre that someone who has set himself up as something of a spokesman on plagiarism and hiring and blogs in the academy in addition to his own scholarly work would levy hamhanded accusations about the breadth of other people's work.
Did you defend dictatorship in Syria? No. But you are awfully critical of someone who is trying to apply pressure on them beyond the little that exists now. I do know that you engaged in the fatuousness of reductio ad absurdum rather than ask these substantial questions to begin with. Do I think I know more about the Middle East and Africa and terrorism than you do? Yes, I do. But that is of no moment. Until you made it such. Factual errors are fine, but when immediately after confusing "Somolia" with "Sudan" you then dare to impugn my capacity to do the work that I do in areas in which I publish and present at conferences and receive funding and teach, well, that is the height of hubris. One would think that someone versed in the liberal arts would value wide-ranging interests. but it's all just material to take cheap shots for Ralph Luker, whose last four posts at Clio have been about commodity history, Hunter S. Thompson, a mishmash of things including a grad student's penis and Middle Ages sexuality, and notes on religion and conflict. And he has the cajones to try to impugn my range of interests. The funny thing is, I would never have thought to challenge his right or ability to speak on these matters. In any case, keep this conversation in mind the next time that Ralph writes a front page story on something outside of what is listed on his vita from UNC. And keep in mind that Africa and terrorism and a fairly prominent fellowship to Israel has featured prominently on mine. And ask yourself further, who set Ralph Luker up as the arbiter of these things?
dc
Ralph E. Luker -
5/27/2005
Unlike dc, I don't claim to be an expert in both middle eastern and African affairs, terrorism, etc, etc. Like dc, I occasionally make factual errors. Unlike dc, I try not to deliberately misrepresent what other people say. I'd like dc to point out where I defended the dictatorship in Syria. Can't do that, can you? No. I knew not and you knew not, as well. How many Moslem countries does dc call on the United States to invade? Can we have a discrete number? The internal changes in south Africa are not at all like what might happen in Syria. I can't imagine why anyone would call for an American intrusion in Syria, when, as _well-informed_ critics, like Niall Ferguson, have pointed out, the United States probably needs to put about five times the current troop levels into Iraq in order to complete the task it set for itself there. The tub thumping over here flies in the face of the fact that there is no evidence that the American public is willing to put additional troops into Iraq, let alone provide troops for invading Sudan or Syria. If you are going to be an expert in these matters, you really need to inform yourself about what is possible, let alone desireable.
E. Simon -
5/27/2005
Chris states that jedi both decided law ("much like...judiciaries") and "protected" it (enforced?), which sounds like they acted in the capacity of two branches of government. Am I to infer that he now opposes the ideas of Montesquieu? Even the South African constitution (of which I think there is much, BTW, to find interesting and innovative - so much for a pre-emptive contradiction between positions there) recognizes separation of powers, as does virtually every functioning government that even stands a chance of being able to respect rights, or failing that, possess a mechanism with which to attempt to address such failing. So which theories of government are tainted beyond legitimacy? Dispassionate analyses of structure, agency and function (even in terms of how well they function to protect rights, don't forget) are apparently verboten. It's ok to favor a society of ethereal ascetics where no one can argue on behalf of respect for their own rights, only those of others. However, it is not ideological to acknowledge that this has never occurred except in literature and science fiction. Note to chris: rights of "all" includes self and others equally. There is nothing nefarious about accepting that one might be better informed about one's own perspective, and therefore able to make a better argument about it; it's the same observation that impels us to listen to others if we aim to respect their perspective. If it's the adversarial system you don't like, why not rail against that?
I also note, for the record - since some people seem not to, that no where did I state anything about democracy equaling rights.
I also note, that anyone could make a facile comparison between violating something (anything), but jaywalking and drunk driving are not the same thing. There is such a thing as being able to objectively analyze and quantify the impact of actions - any action - whether they be violations of human rights or whatever, without obsessing over the fact that they might happen to fall in the same broad overall category. However, that might throw some off by focusing on the possibility that they might differ in specific nature or scope.
The unfortunate thing about Chris, is that there might be interesting discussions to be had, were he not so obsessed with obliterating intellectual pluralism - and doing a bang-up job of it, I might add. Differences of perspective, especially when both are cogent, are a good thing. However, it seems he's in a war to do away with differing perspectives on anything. There are no such things as arguments, just ideologies (except, of course, his own).
E. Simon -
5/27/2005
Five sentences warrants this?
The problem with Chris, other than his need to feel better about himself through extended insults and raving invective (good example to set for a vision of humanity, by the way; the vile behavior here actually says something about the person producing it), is that one basically needs to sign a pledge to agree with everything he says in order to not become the object of his pathology. The best response he can muster toward a participant who states something merely different from - but not in outright opposition to - his obsessive positions, is silence.
I'm also comfortable that most readers here can identify the difference between an acknowledgment and an endorsement, and can identify which of the participants in this discussion turned diatribe cannot.
And for the last time, one can be as much of as idealist about what sort of world people _should_ live in, and still be realistic about the need for bodies that will enforce the legislature, or - lo and behold - even the decision of a judiciary (!) in order to maintain us in a position that is anywhere close. First of all, that's practical, not ideological. Second of all, if Chris were able to calm down long enough to allow himself, as Irfan Khawaja put it "the luxury of cognition," he might realize that there's not much of conflict with that position and his own. But violent, backward, ideological caveman that he is, his impulse to stifle, silence and sneer prevents him from even acknowledging that.
chris l pettit -
5/26/2005
Being a Star wars guy, let me refresh your memory on a couple of things...
First, the Jedi fall very much into my view of international law...with a couple of problems. They were they highly educated, trained, and impartial council that protected peace and human rights. They protected the "rule of law", much like international judiciaries would protect it against ignorant ideological hacks such as yourself and most other miseducated and misinformed humans that vote with their blind faith and self interest at heart. There is a difference between the "rule of man" (the positivism and silly nationalism you support) and the "rule of law" based in universal rights and free from the hypocrisy of the world you inhabit. The Republic was manipulated by ideological and self interested forces, whether they be Sith or otherwise, and shows a good example the paucity of democracy when it comes to peace and human rights (read some John Dunn...you might actually learn something). There needs to be a non-ideological, impartial, highly independent judiciary on an international level that is staffed with the finest international law and human rights scholars and authorities so that law can actually serve its core pupose of overcoming those idiocies of self interest, blind faith, religion, nationalism (the new religion), political alliances, etc, in favor of objective, impartial and universal rights and justice based in dignity and equality. You can still have your democracy, utilitarianism, "rule of man" and rules (you call laws) that exist because the powerful can enforce them to run day to day existance, but as soon as one of those rules restricts a universal right, the judiciary can strike down that rule and curtail your power relationships.
Basic logic? You can't even claim to have any backing in logic, rationality, law, ethics, morality...any of these...your only solace is the self interested hypocrisy of your arguments. Unfortunately, DC is in the same boat when he speaks of Syria somehow being worse than than the US or Israel. Really? Which nation has done the most to destroy the system of international law and human rights? THe US with the help of Israel. Want to do it numbers wise? What state has sponsored more terrorists around the globe (Nicaragua, Israel, Panama, Cuba, on and on)? The US. What state stifles the progress of law, human rights, instead insisting on oppressive international economic regimes that continue to crush even DC's precious Africa? The US.
Logic? You need a course in human reason...
DC at least knows I agree with him on Syria...a nasty country. He also knows I think that all countroies should be treated as what they are under human rights and international law...and in that sense, the US and Israel are as bad as Syria, if not worse. I would not say worse because a violator is a violator once one passes a certain nasty threshold, which all three states have long since breached. DC unfortunately argues within his ideology and is incapable as of yet of stepping outside the box. I am confident that he is not one of those humans who is incapable of learning and will spend his life wallowing in ignorance as one of theose people who should never be heard in debates regarding international law and human rights. You Mr. Simon, I have long given up on. you have nothing useful to say, being motivated only by ideological nonsense...a true disgrace to the species...or a fine example of it, depending on whether my faith is here or not on a given day.
You should read a book...maybe something on rights theory...Dworkin would be good for you...maybe some Rawls. how about Lon Fuller? I must say I would enjoy having you in a conference if just ot be able to destroy your little dreamworld.
CP
Derek Charles Catsam -
5/26/2005
One can end a nation state as it exists without killing all of the people and wiping out the land. Perhaps you do not grasp this. In effect, the nation state of apartheid South Africa, another nation state that we coddled, was ended and reformed in 1994. Again, reductio ad absurdum might be a clever tool for those who do not care about taking foreign policy seriously. it is not a useful tool for the rest of us.
Despite the purple, hand wringing prose at the end of your comment, I seem to understand that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power. However poorly the administration has handled it, however it could have been done better, I have no doubt that Iraq is a better place, and will be a better place, than it was under his dictatorship. Why you would consign Syrians to their present leadership is beyond me.
By the way, I do not call for intervention in "Somolia," a nation-state that does not exist (Somalia, perhaps?). I do call for intervention in "Sudan," a nation state that does. Your woeful grasp of African geography and politics apparently runs neck-and-neck with your woeful sense of perspective on the Middle East. But keep defending the Syrian dictatorship. I suppose someone must. Oh, wait -- I suppose no such thing.
dc
Jason Nelson -
5/26/2005
Mr. Luker,
It good to see that you still enjoy speaking for me. As Lukas might say, "If you are speaking in absolutes, you have joined the dark side". There is a middle ground Mr. Luker; Mr Catsam can agree with Bush in certain cases and still be an opponent of him. It is not all or nothing. I believe that in intellectual circles this might be termed a nuance. Or course, you are providing evidence to Bush opponents who say that Bush voters are not sophisticated enough to understand nuance. I know you can tell the difference. I believe this is a simple case of “There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.” It is good to hear from you again.
Ralph E. Luker -
5/26/2005
Good to see that Jason Nelson has understood dc to be in GWB's camp. I suspect they'd both object.
Jason Nelson -
5/26/2005
Mr. Catsam,
I am shocked by the fervor of those who want to either defend Syria or use Syria to bash the United States.
I thought I understood what you meant when you used the word "coddled", and I believe what you say is true.
I guess you can't suggest that the US get tough with Syria without people throwing around the nuclear parking lot references, or my personal favorite, "great heat and sand make glass...Let's turn the desert country into Superman's palace" references. Don't you love it when others try to put words in your mouth? I read what you wrote; I don't know where this is coming from.
Finally, the moral relativism run amuck of Mr. Pettit is chilling. I guess America is just like the Syria. Wow. Mr. Pettit, no matter how much you would like it to be true, so as to prove your larger belief that only a good "I feel your pain" liberal can be a good president, I have one thing to say to you. One good Star Wars analogy deserves another.
No amount of tortured reasoning by you or George Lukas will make Aniken Skywalker's version of the No Child Left Behind Act remotely similar to George Bush's.
Ralph E. Luker -
5/26/2005
I'm just trying to understand _your_ position. First, the U. S. has "coddled" Syria for too long. When questioned on it, "coddled" was perhaps an overstatement, but it had tolerated the existence of Syria as a nation-state for too long. When questioned on that, you seem to agree that the U. S. might not want to obliterate the nation-state of Syria. Really, dc, given the current chaos in Iraq and your calls for intervention in Somolia, I'm not surprised at your enthusiasm for additional American interventions in additional middle eastern states, but I am disappointed that experience doesn't seem to constrain your enthusiasms. How many billions and billions of dollars foolishly expended; how many thousands and tens of thousands of lives lost will it take?
E. Simon -
5/25/2005
Chris, the Jedi were a part of a republic of autonomous (meaning self-governing in the sense that nation states are self-governing) systems. The alternative was an empire with absolute primacy over that autonomy, such as how you envision IL. When was hatred a jedi virtue?
I also think someone badly needs a refresher course in basic logic.
You called for the destruction of Syria as a nation-state. I now am told that that is not what you meant.
Derek Charles Catsam -
5/25/2005
The US and Israel are similar to the Syrians? Let's get serious.
dc
Derek Charles Catsam -
5/25/2005
Yes, I suppose that is all that is left to do if you believe that reductio ad absurdum is a serious way to confront foreign policy. if you do not believe in, say, serious sanctions, of diplomatic arjm twisting, of limited military force, of using international organizations, of using allies. So yes, there is "nothing left to do" except for a whole host of things that one might do, and if those things cause Syria not to exist as we know it now, am I to feel sorry? Am I to lament wholesale change in the most autocratic regime in arguably the most autocratic region on earth? I care about human rights -- Syria might be the most cavalier state about human rights in the world. I care about women's rights -- ditto. I care about promoting democracy and opposing terrorism. Syria is the exact photo-negative, loathing democracy and supporting the worst terrorism on the globe. So yes, your assertion is our only choice, short of a host of other things that we could do. Again, reductio ad absurdum is not much of a way to deal with foreign policy. I guess when i said "they still exist as a nation state" I ought to have said that "they still exist as a nation state in the form that has destabilized the Middle East and terrorized their own people," and even with that absence, how one can conclude nonsense about lakes or nuclear wastelands is beyond me.
dc
chris l pettit -
5/25/2005
no caustic words, nothing like that...I am just in awe.
You are right about Syria...I don't know if the hatred is conducive to anything constructive though...although I feel the same way about them, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, the new Iraq government, Iran, the US, Israel, Russia, Zimbabwe, Sudan, and many others...maybe we should nuke them all (including ourselves)...why coddle ourselves anymore? Enemy is the word given to anyone who disrespects universal peace and human rights and supports terrorism and militarism...the majority of the governments in the world do this to some extent and their self interested blind populations support it...hence my reluctant conceding that most humans are ignorant, miseducated, ideological scum that refuse to utilise their ability to reason and know right from wrong. We are the bottom of the evolutionary chain, and our sick reliance on nationalism, religion, ethnicity, and greed makes us one of the worst forms of life on the planet. THose of us striving for peace and human rights must be mutations or anomalies or something...
Now only if you would direct that vitriol at everyone who is very similar to the Syrians...meaning the US, Israel, and others you (or others) support with no credible foundation.
Give in to the hate for the nation-state...come to the Jedi side and turn away from the dark side of nationalism and ideological application...halfway teasing of course...
CP
Ralph E. Luker -
5/25/2005
Well, there's obviously nothing left to do but to destroy Syria as a nation-state. Make a lake of it, perhaps, or a nuclear wasteland.
Derek Charles Catsam -
5/25/2005
How have we coddled Syria? They still exist as a nation-state, for one thing, despite being the worst terrorist-sponsoring state on the globe. We still have diplomatic ties with them for another. It was not part of the "Axis of Evil" for yet another. "Coddling" might be strong, I concede, but weve given them far, far, far too much leeway to do us and our allies harm. This break (initiated by them) is just far as fine as I am concerned.
dc
Ralph E. Luker -
5/25/2005
I'm trying to remember the last time that the United States "coddled" Syria. It must have been within my lifetime. Pre-Baathist Syria? I don't recall the United States even "coddling" the brief United Arab Republic union of Egypt and Syria.
