SYRIA ISSUE IS NON PARTISAN

The upcoming debate in Congress on Syria is going to be interesting, exciting, but complex. The opening salvos are scary in the sense of what might happen. John McCain has declared that a few missile strikes over a two-day period would not be enough.  That should not surprise anyone who follows this Arizona Marlborough Cowboy; if someone has a big gun, we have to show him or her we have a bigger gun.  At first bush, it would seem no one would buy his logic; however, when we look at history and the Iraq war we see that there are plenty of people in high places that what a “boots on the ground” prolonged war no matter where it is; call it the ‘Halliburton complex’. It does not matter how you make money; all that matters is that you make money. Couple this thought with the idea that Congress is the best Congress “money can buy”, which means McCain may be able to lead the charge for passing a “punish” Syria resolution that would thwart Obama’s humanitarian intentions and turn it into an ugly war to expand the United States business empire.

I have posted blogged for the past several days pointing out that Obama’s response to the gassing of 1400 people in Syria was an emotional response. As humans are prone to do, he responded to his emotional level and then his reaction took the form of a well-reasoned response. The American people are tired of war. In addition, a large number of us are tired of the old style diplomacy based on doing what is good for business even if we have to overthrow a government or two to do it or use the CIA to subvert opposition—the kind of things progressives hate. Some of us welcome Obama’s “progressive” ideas as he has shown us in the many Arab Spring controversies across the Middle East; democracy means that “people” in a country run that country and not some self-serving religious group or business group but most pointedly run by a Untied States based multinational corporations. A country that is free, is truly free to sell their natural resources to any buyer, be it oil, fruit, or labor and at what price. They are not part of “our empire” or hegemony. This is Obama’s message. This is so different from Reaganomics diplomacy (Reagan; Someone Else’s Hero, firetreepub.bogspot.com) that people are having difficulty understanding what Obama doing. Greed has poisoned the diplomatic well so badly that the America people do not trust their own government.

McCain and some of his Republican corporate cronies would abhor the idea that the United States of America should not be the biggest, best, most powerful country in the world; number one in the “peck order of nations”. However, like in business, for them it does not matter how you achieve this as long as you are top chicken. To Obama it makes a difference. He wants us to be the top nation in the world because all other nations respect us because of what we stand for; what is right and not because they fear us.

We, as a nation, will punish al Assad because it is the right thing to do but only if the Congress can save itself from corporate greed in the form of a McCain resolution calling for an invasion of Syria to spend taxpayers money lots of it. I find irony in the fact that Rand Paul’s isolationism, the libertarian who wants a hermit nation, may end up working with deontologists who think no one should ever be hurt for any reason no matter how righteous; thus, giving that coalition the swing vote in deciding an issue dealing with the high value of moral punishment in controlling national behavior.

The Syria issue is unique as the issue of slavery in as much as it is not a partisan issue—at least it should not be a partisan issue—it is an issue dealing with human morality. It is not liberal verses conservative or Democrat verse Republican; it deals with human values at a much more fundamental level: at the level of emotions verses reason. Evolutionary psychology in congress: who would have ever “thunk it.”

URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated