Endless War

What is perplexing -- if not outright insane -- is how war with Syria has become a foregone conclusion without any proof as to who was responsible for firing the chemical-bearing shells at the Eastern Ghouta that claimed the lives of over 300 people. It would be one thing if we lived in an age when trust in government was high and the track record of politicians sending citizens off to war was pristine. But of course we live in a time when almost no one believes in the good faith of the government and we fight wars perpetually on the basest of motives. That's what makes the sudden acceptance by the New York Times Editorial Board that the Assad government is to blame for the chemical weapons attack last Wednesday morning -- without any discussion of all that the rebels had to gain by staging such an attack, without a discussion of what the video evidence pointed to in the way of chemicals used (industrial, not military-grade, chemicals), without anything more than the barest and most marginal treatment of Syria's (and Russia's) assessment of what happened -- so jarring. We're back to accepting assurances sight unseen from nameless officials. This is how we go to war.

The New York Times, which up until now has been anti-interventionist despite employing a robustly pro-opposition reporter in Anne Barnard, is edging towards a military strike on Syria to show the Iranians that we mean what we say that you can't have a nuclear capability.

You would think, based on how badly the Times was burned by passing on fabricated intelligence to its frontpage in the run up to the invasion of Iraq a decade ago (and the subsequent mea culpa), that the people who manage the paper would have learned a lesson. But when it comes to going to war our trusted and most prestigious organs of information chronically fail us.

And make no mistake, we're headed for war. This from today's "Kerry Cites Clear Evidence of Chemical Weapon Use in Syria" by Michael Gordon and Mark Landler:

Administration officials said that although President Obama had not made a final decision on military action, he was likely to order a limited military operation — cruise missiles launched from American destroyers in the Mediterranean Sea at military targets in Syria, for example — and not a sustained air campaign intended to topple Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, or to fundamentally alter the nature of the conflict on the ground.

Some had argued that all the beating of war drums in Washington was just a way of getting talks percolating with the Russians. Not the case:

In a move that reflected its differences with the Kremlin over a possible American-led military operation against Syria, the Obama administration has decided to postpone a coming meeting with the Russians on the crisis. A Russian delegation had been scheduled to meet this week in The Hague with Wendy R. Sherman, the under secretary of state for political Affairs, and Robert S. Ford, the senior American envoy to the Syrian opposition, to discuss plans for a peace conference to end the fighting in Syria. 

A senior State Department official said Monday night that the session would be postponed because of the administration’s “ongoing consultations about the appropriate response to the chemical weapons attack in Syria.”

And in another sad development Ben Hubbard, a usually fair reporter, has gone over to the dark side with a lengthy piece of frontpage propaganda aimed at demonizing the Syrian government.

All of this leads one to the unmistakable conclusion that what we do is war, regardless of who is in the White House, even if it is a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate. Our future will be filled with war, endless war, as the Middle East is cracked and our "anti-war" president is replaced by another commander-in-chief who will not be as tentative about the use of force. Iran will be next. The people don't want anything to do with it. But what the people want doesn't matter.