A Modest Solution to the Syrian Civil War and Related Regional Problems

When the domestic situation looks unsolvable it is a time honored solution to look to foreign policy as a way of distracting the locals from the government-created misery that is their life. Not only is this approach used successfully by governments, it can be used successfully by individuals to help avoid thinking and working on their own problems, a sort-of trickle down "distract the miserable" approach. Thus I have been putting considerable time into the Syria issue and whether we should start firing missiles at that part of the world.

The answer, I am happy to say is, No, we should not fire missiles. Nothing we do there will help the situation, anything that we do could have unforseen results. It is a no win situation for us. I am sorry that the Syrians and their neighbors are killing each other, and I am sorry that some of these people are assholes. But that is not a good enough reason to go to war.

But if you say we must do something, I have a proposal for you. I am sure that the small-minded scum in Washington will ignore my suggestion, but I am used to that. Pearls before Swine if you ask me.

If you want to help that region, forget about bombing Syria, ask yourself why is this region all fucked up (using the technical terms here, "fucked up"). What do the following countries have in common: Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq? They were all created out of the former Ottoman Empire which is the country we now call Turkey. Turkey was also created at the end of WWI out of the former Ottoman Empire. This was all set up by the British and the French, mostly.

Since these countries clearly can not handle their affairs, I am referring to Syria, et alia, not England and France, and since this little British and French experiment in nation building is such a disaster, lets swallow our pride, and ask Turkey to come back, and manage the area for us. Forget about Syria, its just a province of the new Ottoman Empire, and better for it.

Bring back the Sublime Porte, the Grand Vizier, the Harem. All of it. I think that the world has given a good shot at letting the people of the region rule themselves, and they have proven to everyone how competent they are at it which is not very competent at all.

Lets admit our mistakes and bring back the Ottomans.

Furthermore, I predict that this will result in a massive increase in employment for certain technical people.  The Ottoman's were well known for the use of Unix, they had Unix everywhere, especially the Harem.

Perhaps the Harem is a problem for you, my sensitive, politically correct, white friend?  You might want to look into the role of women in the near east, first.  The Harem actually had quite a bit of power in the Ottoman empire.  More power than women have in politics in most of the contemporary Near East, I think.

Below we have a photograph of a classic Harem and concept art for a proposed anime-style modern Harem.

Also, the Ottoman's were quite stylish.  Check out the head gear, below.

Suleiman Himself

Map of the Ottoman Empire at its Largest

So in conclusion, by bringing back the Ottoman Empire to that part of the world, and getting rid of the current countries of Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc, we have a plan that will reduce violence, increase employment, elevate the role of women in their society, and add to sartorial elegance.  All of these things are good things, good for us and good for the region.

I hope you will support the campaign to restore the Ottoman Empire with your representatives in Washington.

Lawrence in Damascus

I can not think of anything more pointless and certain to backfire than getting involved in the internecine wars between various factions in the Islamic Near East.    May as well shoot yourself for all the good it will do.

And furthermore it will just make one side or another hate us even more.  I admit that in some of those cases they may already hate us as much as they can so it might not do much more harm, but that seems to me to be a very negative way to see the world.

If you have not read a history of the area and you do not yet understand where Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Jordan came from, then stop right now and go read about it.   They were created by the British and the French after WW I out of provinces of the former Ottoman Empire.  We also had something to do with it but mostly indirectly as far as I can tell. We become more involved in the area after WW II.

Lawrence of Arabia enters Damascus in a wood-body Rolls that has been adapted for desert warfare.

So, why, oh why, would we ever get involved militarily in this sewer of shit?  (holding back my real feelings).

It is for one reason and one reason only, as far as I can tell.  There has to be a real cost to using chemical and biological weapons, a cost that even a stupid thug, like the ones that run most countries, can understand and appreciate.   If one does not respond to their use, their deliberate use, then those people now and in the future will draw a lesson from that inaction.

That is the only reason.   I doubt it will help the Syrian's one bit.

It might help some people somewhere in the world, as yet unknown, who would otherwise have such weapons used against them.  Maybe if we act now, some desperate leader of some country or military in the future will not use these weapons.

That I think is the idea here.

_______________________________________________

Footnote.

Because people always seem surprised when they get into a war and discover that it is expensive, that there is history, that people hate each other, that it goes on longer than it should, etc, I wrote a list of "things to consider before getting involved in a war that is in any way discretionary".  Some wars are not discretionary but some of them are and, where possible, it is wise to remember that discretion is the better part of valour.

I can not, not, not believe we are about to get involved in another middle east conflict.

Some Points to Consider Before Starting A War

The Uses of Snowden: Perception of the Death Penalty in the World at Large

This is the second of three essays on how Ed Snowden has been very helpful in bringing matters to our attention outside of the area which he intended, e.g. surveillance.  In this part we discuss the issue of how the death penalty is perceived in the world, something brought up because of Snowden's applications for amnesty in which he mentioned his concerns about being tortured or executed should he return to the United States.

Ah, the death penalty. What could be more American? An eye for an eye! Hang the bastard. String em up. Hang em high! A necktie party. A rough frontier justice. "And may God have mercy on your soul.... you may proceed", said the preacher.

There are regional differences of course. My favorite is Texas' "Justifiable Homicide" laws. In Texas you can get away with murder if you can convince a jury that 'he needed killing'.  

"You remember Jack. He was always drunk. Never did a day's honest work in his life. When he ran over Sam's dog, I had enough and I shot the good-for-nothing sonofabitch until he was dead".

So all is well and good, after all cultural diversity works many ways. Some countries have spicier food, we have the death penalty. Each to his own, I say.

What could be more American than a good hangin'?

But the world is filled with a bunch of damn foreigners. Damn it, its true, I have seen them myself. And many of them look on in horror at our death penalty, seeing it as barbaric, as "cruel and unusual punishment" and drawing far too many conclusions from the trivial and irrelevant detail that it is only the poor people who get executed while the rich go free. Oh yes, and that there *may* be a correlation, some say, between race and wealth and therefore of who gets the axe and who does not. Of course this isn't true! P'shaw I say! Certainly not in Florida!

How do I know that much of the world does not share our appreciation of the death penalty? Well it is due to that savior of modern man, that icon of all that is moral and pretentious in America, everyone's favorite martyr and photographic opportunity, Ed Snowden.

Yes, you see, in order to apply for amnesty in various countries it is useful, perhaps even required, that you articulate the case that if you were returned to the country you were trying to flee from, that you would be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. For example, you might be tortured or put to death. So Ed made that case and many countries responded well to the argument.

Because, you see, the fact is that this country is now famous for torturing people. Yes, we can thank the illegal Bush administration for that. But its not all Bush's fault, imho, because you see when Obama came in he refused to have members of the Bush administration tried for their crimes. Had he done so, then he would have made the clear statement that American's found torture to be unacceptable. But he didn't and instead made the point that people of one Presidential Administration can commit any crime against humanity and get off.

On top of that, famously there was one way to get shot in America, legally that is, and that was to commit what was called "treason" back in the day. But since one can easily use that word, and people do, they went to the trouble of defining it. Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution defines treason as giving "aid and comfort" to the enemy during time of war. And war is defined as being declared formally by Congress, none of this namby pamby "police action" or "humanitarian mission" stuff back then. Therefore, someone who may or may not be considered to have given "aid and comfort" during a time when Congress has not declared war could not be considered for treason. On paper, that is.

In fact, you can try anyone for anything and leave it up to the courts to decide.

Which is why, when Snowden got international sympathy for the fact that if he returned to the US he might be tried for treason and shot, the US Department of Justice went out of its way to say that they would not seek the death penalty.

They would not have done so had not the argument that we are a cruel and murderous country rang true in the eyes of people of the world. Two thirds of the countries of the world have outlawed the death penalty (which is different of course from whether or not their government kills people, oh by the way). The USA is the number 5th country in the world for executions, coming in after China, Iran, North Korea and Yemen. Now that is a list right there to give one pause and wonder just what is going on.

I was not aware of how we were seen in this area by many people of the world until it was Snowden who brought it to my attention.  Well, I knew a little about it I guess, but hadn't given the issue much thought.

Is there a possible way out of this dilemma?  A solution that lets us keep our death penalty, so important to so many Americans, yet avoids the onus that accompanies "stringing someone up"?

I believe that there is.   What if we amended the law so that only the rich would be at jeopardy to being sent to "Ol' Sparkey" (the electric chair) for their crimes?  Its only fair after all, they are the only ones who can afford the legal system in this country; a poor man or woman certainly can not.

I think that world opinion would respond to this change and recognize that we had significantly made progress on the issue of the death penalty and furthermore that we were taking a very progressive step on the issue of the very wealthy people in a world filled with unbelievable poverty.

I hope that all good Americans will join me in calling for the death penalty for the rich.

Thank you.
____________________________________

Notes

1, "Old Sparky" -- The Electric Chair
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Sparky

The Uses of Snowden: Passports are Given and Passports are Taken Away

[revised 8/27/2013]

One commonly held theory is that Snowden is useful for stimulating dialog and discussion in America on a variety of topics, and that this process of discussion is valuable independent of whether or not Snowden is actually the traitor that he wants to be or is merely guilty of narcissistic self-delusion.

For a quick review of Narcissistic Personality Disorder see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

But whether actual traitor or merely a self-proclaimed martyr, his public travel dysfunction has stirred up at least three notable topics, none of them particularly to do with national security or surveillance. The topics are

1. What is a Passport and when can it be revoked ?

2. How does the rest of the world see our death penalty and use of torture ?

3. What is the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and what does it mean?

We will take this one piece at a time. First, the Passport.

1. The Passport

When Snowden's passport was revoked, righteous indignation spewed from the usual sources accusing the US Government of doing something illegal or immoral. So what is a passport and do you have a right to one? A passport is three things, two of them formal and one of them implied.   It is first identity paperwork and second a request that courtesy be shown the holder of the passport when travelling in another country.    By convention and by treaty it has accrued a third meaning, which is the de facto right to travel internationally at all.  The passport has a long history but as we know it in its modern incarnation it came into existence during WWI in order to control the passage of people of various nationalities across borders in Europe.  This specific need for border control evolved into the right to travel internationally in general.  No passport or diplomatic papers of some sort meant no international travel, for the most part.

The most famous fictional "letter of transit" for Victor Laszlo travelling through Casablanca

As it is currently conceived of, a passport is issued by a country's foreign service, in this case our Department of State, at their discretion and it may be revoked at their discretion. In our country, failure to pay child support is cause to revoke someone's passport, even if that passport is required for them to make a living, or to exercise any of their other interests or rights to travel. It can be pulled without recourse to law and is so pulled every day of the week in this country. So why shouldn't they pull the passport of someone who claims to be violating American law and releasing classified information ?

Furthermore, not having a passport is not a barrier to travel if another country wishes you to visit them.  Those countries can issue one of several types of diplomatic documents (usually temporary) that will enable someone without a passport to travel to them. They do it all the time, when they want to. In the case of Snowden, I guess they didn't want to.  (Of course a little pressure on them by our Government might have been applied behind the scenes, do you suppose?)

If Americans wish to change the process by which a passport can be revoked and the rules involving who can have a passport and what their rights are, I am all for it. But that would be a major change and would probably require the cooperation of congress and the courts.

But maybe a better question is why a "government" is necessary to have a passport at all?   How many people who are alive today chose the government they live under?   Is it perhaps 1% of the people?   I certainly did not choose this oppressive government that protects the rich and humiliates the poor. Why should governments have such control over international travel at all beyond what they permit at their own borders?

Recall, a passport is identity and a request for courtesy, combined with an implied third meaning: which is the right to travel internationally.   Why not have another, presumably international, body, certify the identity of a person and negotiate by treaty (1) the right to travel?  Maybe the UN could do this and actually be good for something beyond getting their diplomats immunity from traffic tickets in NYC. 

In parts II and III we will go over how the world sees our death penalty and how that affects the Snowden matter and then review the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Snowden has accused the US of being in violation of. He is right, by the way, we are. They all are. All countries are.

Just wait until you read this thing.

______________________________________________

1. So far as I know treaties are made by sovereign countries and their descendants (e.g. when Soviet Russia picked up the treaties of Imperial Russia).   So is the UN allowed to make treaties of this type? What is funny about this question is that I do not have a clue what the answer is, but I suspect the answer is "its complicated".