Syria and "Politics"

I don't watch CNN or Fox News or any of that 24-hour-news-cycle junk, but I have caught wind of the bizarre perceptions of the Syria problem just by looking at Facebook once a day. One person wanted to know why the president was "stalling." Another lauded him for following the democratic process by consulting Congress even if it did make him look weak. Another predicted that whatever Obama would do would fail, and that he would blame it on "someone else, just like he always does."

The question of whether to bomb or attack or leave Syria alone has profound consequences. Assad's use of chemical weapons on his own people is a serious breech of every norm of international law. As the most powerful military force in the world, the United States can not simply claim moral neutrality in the matter and walk away. But the alternatives to Assad may be nasty, too. One opposition group just posted a video of its most recent execution. And whether the United States can have any positive impact on the situation is not at all obvious.

That is to say, this is a problem for politics. We need to engage in a serious discussion, through legitimate political processes, about what to do as a nation. Tea Party isolationism may be a fair position to take, just as Republican interventionism or Democratic interventionism may be.

What's not helpful or productive or even justifiable is glib mudslinging or name calling. This is serious. If you don't have something serious to say, pipe down and let us work it out.

Donald Rumsfeld, for example, whose entire career has been a series of disgraceful miscalculations and cynical manipulations, should get no air time at all, especially if he is just going to be insulting.