“On Obama and Syria”
God save the children
The crux of the president's argument focused on the morally
ambiguous implications of not intervening. He argued that we should not stand
by as countless innocent civilians (children in particular) are placed in
danger. At the end of his address, Mr. Obama argued, “With modest effort and
risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death, and thereby make our own
children safer over the long run.” Of course, this is an argument that we've
heard before. Politicians are particularly keen on using children (a proxy for
the future) as a reason for either action—in this case military intervention—or
inaction (consider the debt ceiling debate from last year). This line of
argumentation is flawed because it is resoundingly disingenuous. That is not to
say that politicians don't care about children or that the plight of the
world's children is not important; the point is that "children" in
this context is nothing more than an abstraction in the same way that the
"economy" is an abstraction (what, for example, do people envision
when they argue that the President, Congress, or multi-national corporations
should "fix" the economy?).
Lee Edelman argues succinctly against this rhetorical appeal
to children by implying that a strict focus on children, since
"children" signifies the future, subordinates the present, that is to
say, present concerns and problems. Furthermore, by directing our attention to
an abstraction, our solutions become equally abstract. Did Mr. Obama illuminate
what this "modest effort and risk" will entail? Also, what are our
collective goals? What do we want from this intervention? Regrettably, when we
direct our attention exclusively on children (as a rhetorical signifier) we
sound like well-intentioned parents who want "the best" for their
individual children: our political hearts are in the right place, so to speak,
but our brains don't know where to begin.
What you see is what
you...I can't recall the rest
For those of you who don't know, I teach English Composition
to freshman and continuing education students at the university and the community
college level. I am, therefore, not only teaching these students how to write
and think; I am also constantly conceptualizing what I want my students to look
like as students when they leave my class. I am, of course, pragmatic and
realistic. I don't labor under the delusion that my students, once they finish
my class, will become avid connoisseurs of great literature. I have a simply
and clear expectation: I want my students to be more aware and sensitive to
rhetorical situations. I want my students to think more efficiently, which is
to say, I want my students to have increased intellectual awareness. My sense
is that most competent professors do the same. However, I do not see that sort
of endplay at work with Mr. Obama’s Syria strategy. Mr. Obama did not
thoroughly explain the expectations regarding a potential military intervention
in Syria. What does Mr. Obama see when he conceptualizes a post-intervention
Syria? Does he even know?
I suppose one could argue (as the President did) that if
chemical weapons are no longer an option, then the intervention makes sense. Mr.
Obama argued the following: “Even a limited strike will send a message to Assad
that no other nation can deliver…a targeted strike can make Assad, or any other
dictator, think twice before using chemical weapons.” Protecting a people from
future attack is certainly forward thinking conceptualization. Regrettably, the
problem with this objective is the lack of definitive sustainability. We do
not, for example, know that this intervention will create elongated stability
that adequately protects the Syrian people from future attack. If we take a
second look at the language he used, it is clear that Mr. Obama does not seem
to have the convention of his rhetoric. He argued that other dictators would
“think twice before using chemical weapons.” That sounds less definitive than
I’m sure he wanted it to sound. Furthermore, this notion of “thinking twice”
establishes a false dichotomy between the sober, reluctant humanitarian
interventionist who acts only after thorough deliberation (Obama) and the
inhumane dictator who orders chemical attacks with brazen, unreflective
disregard (Assad). All we know is that intervention is a finite solution to a
much larger, multi-dimensional problem. Protecting a people from immediate
attack is important, but if we cannot parley immediate intervention into a
sustained prescription for elongated security, is it necessarily worth it? Are
we not putting ourselves in a position to re-litigate this problem once the
finite solution runs its course? If you think I'm wrong, wait a month or so for
this year's debt ceiling debate. This is yet another example of a finite fix to
a much larger problem.
No comments:
Post a Comment