There is no world order. The last one died in Iraq

[Tom Rinaldo]

I have mixed feelings about this. People always strive to establish order, that’s one of the main things that we do. We set up homes and make friends. We set up governments and make allies. We seek stability. For almost a hundred years America was the world’s policeman. Cops have a lot of power, they exercise lethal force. It’s not always a good thing to have a cop around, but there are times when it is. Inside nations like Afghanistan there are people who oppose much of what the Taliban stand for and do, and yet still prefer their harsh yet predictable rule to living among unchecked armed thugs when the Taliban are not around.

I wish that my reactions to the latest events inside of Syria and the Obama Administration’s response to them were simpler than it is. I hate the use of any deadly force, except some times when even more death would occur without it. But it’s rarely ever that straight forward. Sometimes the trade tendered is to accept a near certain death now for the possibility of saving dozens of lives later. On the global scale they call that type of calculus “real world politics”.

The world has had worse cops than America. Hitler’s Germany would have been worse. In my opinion Stalin’s Soviet Union would have been worse also. Not in all ways, it seldom is that black and white, but overall I do feel worse. Internationalism has long been a tenet of progressive thinking. It gave rise to a world wide socialist movement; “Workers of the World Unite!” Nationalism is often overly narrow and has fertilized many a brutal armed conflict. There are, I think, some things even more important than preserving the local peace. Standing up against oppression is among them, so is acting to stop genocide even if it is happening half way around the world. But is it called genocide if both sides in a civil war seek to exterminate the other?

Far too often the U.S. has acted like a corrupt police force on the world stage, one bought off by moneyed interests. Even corrupt police forces help victims of traffic accidents and shoot rabid skunks. Some would prefer a corrupt police force to none at all, others would not. Back in Woodrow Wilson’s day there were high hopes for the League of Nations. Those hopes were never realized. The end of World War Two led to the start of the United Nations. The U.N. has accomplished some worthwhile things but it is only as strong as the consensus that supports it, and a Security Council veto grinds it to a halt.

How does one discern the difference between an honest cop and a corrupt one? What if both are on the same payroll? The last Bush Administration wanted a war with Iraq bad enough to lie its way into it. In my opinion the Obama Administration doesn't feel the same about Syria. How much does the difference matter?

I have always supported the Geneva Accords. They were then and remain now a shining step away from the mad darkness of unbridled warfare. I also believe that war crimes truly exist, transcending in their magnitude the generic horror of organized armed conflict. I am grateful to see that view validated by international agreements. I also support continuing efforts to outlaw the use of land mines and depleted uranium as weapons of war through ratified international treaties.

That poison gas has been used against people before despite international agreements banning it doesn’t surprise me, what surprises me is how seldom it has been used. Why is that? What stands behind such international agreements other than the paper they are written on? Is it the World Court? Is it the existence of a global policeman, or a larger alliance of global policemen? Is it ultimately world opinion, or our innate impulse to back away from the pursuit of mutually assured destruction?

A case can be made for the continued role of the United States as world policeman, but I believe that case in increasingly moot. Whether or not the U.S. still has that capacity we, the people, have ceased to have the will for it. That ended in Iraq. In hindsight now it is clear that most of us had been resigned to having very little say in the mater. Like it or not, we were accustomed to Presidents having the authority to doing virtually whatever they wanted when it came to “national security”. Then the UK Parliament defied a sitting Prime Minister and refused to be America’s trusty side kick for another military adventure dispute the arguments he summoned in support of striking Syria. And then, to his credit, President Obama decided it was necessary to make his case directly to Congress, the elected representatives of the American people.

And the people who those representatives are beholden to responded by speaking out. They have done so in unusual numbers with a nearly unprecedented almost unanimous opinion, and that opinion is straight forward. The American people say “No.” The old “New World Order” is over; there is no world order any longer. The emperor may or may not still have clothes but he has lost his dutiful subjects and that now is painfully clear. Obama isn’t that emperor; he is just the current regent. The repudiation of America’s role as global policeman by the American people is far more resounding than any referendum on Obama, or his proposed military strike, alone. We no longer, if we ever did, have the will for it, and now that truth is known for the entire world to see.

Will Iran factor this shifting reality into their deliberations over whether to develop working nuclear weapons? Of course, why wouldn't they? But that by itself won’t determine their decision either way – it is one of many important factors for them to continue to wrestle with. As America backs down attempting to enforce the previous world order a vacuum will grow, but vacuums are by nature a self limiting phenomena; something will grow to replace it. I can’t say with any certainty what I will think about the eventually coming next world order since it has yet to arrive. The American people will still have a role in it, perhaps even a larger one in a way since we seem to have found a more direct voice, less stifled by a Washington power structure overseeing us. That part at least should be a positive development.

[leveymg]

1. Far from being the world's policeman,our policies toward Syria have been the result of being bullied

and blackmailed, and just plain bought out, by countries in the region, primarily Israel and Saudi Arabia.

As for Israel's bullying and blackmail, even the New York Times and ABC have observed it. Almost exactly a year before the gas attack, on Aug 20,2012, Obama made a speech.

The use of chemical weapons, itself, was not exactly Obama’s original “red line,” as he laid it out during a news conference at the White House on Aug. 20, 2012. For purposes of expediency and practicality, media outlets have simplified the “red line” as this: If Syria deployed chemical weapons against its own people, it would have crossed a threshold with the White House.

But what Obama said was a little less clear.

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,” the president said a year ago last week. “That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”

It was also unclear what the consequences of crossing that “red line” would be. Obama has cautioned that unilateral action, particularly without a U.N. mandate, may be unwise and could run afoul of international law. In keeping with the strategy he used in seeking international cooperation for airstrikes against Libya in 2011, Obama warned in a CNN interview last week that international cooperation is key to military intervention.

To many, Wednesday’s attack outside Damascus would likely qualify as “a whole bunch” of chemical weapons deployed. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/08/president-obamas-red-line-what-he-actually-said-about-syria-and-chemical-weapons/

What is the context of that speech? According to the NYT the following day, Israel was signaling that if the US did not take a harder line, it would act preemptively as it had done in bombing a Syrian reactor under construction: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/world/middleeast/obama-threatens-force-against-syria.html?_r=3&src=me&ref=world&

Mr. Obama, who has said little about Syria in recent weeks, stressed the regional risk from its unconventional weapons. “That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria,” he said. “It concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us.”

His comments seemed aimed as much at the Israelis as the Syrians. Israeli officials have indicated they might intervene if they thought those weapons were on the loose and might be unleashed on their territory.

By hinting that the United States might participate in locating and neutralizing the weapons, Mr. Obama was clearly trying to forestall the possibility of an Israeli move into Syria — and the reaction it might provoke.

As for the undue and improper influence of Saudi Arabia in this matter, the actions are a bit different, as the instrument is commercial and financial rather than overt political pressure and threatening of direct military attack if the US does not do it, itself. By now, I hope you are aware of Prince Bandar's recent travels and attempts to bribe the Russians and the United States. Bandar's "offer" to the U.S. was characterized by John Kerry this way:

"With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assist, the answer is profoundly yes," Kerry said. "They have. That offer is on the table." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2411806/Offer-table-Arab-countries-pay-scale-U-S-invasion-Syria-says-Secretary-State-John-Kerry.html#ixzz2ePcq2S2O

These things are, I am afraid, evidence of a terrible weakness and vulnerability of the United States, not the exercise of any unchallenged authority or its overwhelming power in the world.

We have been sunk low, not by our enemies, but by our putative "allies."

[Tom Rinaldo]

2. Whether the American people want to continue to support being a global policemen is one issue

Whether other world powers including allies as you say want to acquiesce to direction from us or increasingly would rather determine how our capacities are directed is yet another. For both reasons the U.S. is no longer sitting in the drivers seat for better and for worse.

[leveymg]

3. Our role goes only so far as we can be cajoled w/an outdated and dangerous self-image of omnipotence

It does other parties no good at all to continue to try to manipulate us, and we them, if we simply acknowledge the obvious: we can't continue our relationship on this basis, anymore.

It will take a bit of adjusting on all sides, but in the end, it may avoid mutual disaster.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. That is my conclusion also

Lots of uncertainties for sure, but it is time to accept current reality. Tho last world order catered most to the ruling American elites, and their international allies. There is a good chance most of us will be better off without it when all is said and done.