War and Peace: Obama's other options

President Obama has proposed taking military action to punish Bashar Al-Assad for using chemical weapons against his own people. Obama argues that permitting this use to pass unpunished would make it easier for other nations or terrorist groups to use chemical weapons against us and our allies.

I applaud Obama for his demonstration of humanity and compassion. Clinton and G.W. Bush used to speak about compassion, but they did so to justify inhumane acts, such as persecuting welfare recipients or starting wars in distant countries. Obama evidently believes in the rule of law. He believes that those who break the law must be punished in order for justice to be done.

Obama's heart is in the right place. But he is wrong about how to punish the Assad regime. Dropping bombs on Syria will only harm the Syrian people, not the dictator who is killing them. It will also continue the cycle of vengeance that laws were invented to prevent.

The cycle of vengeance is familiar to every student of history. If you attack me, or my friend, I will attack you, harder if possible. Then you will have to attack me to retain your self-respect. There is no end to this cycle.

The cycle of vengeance drives politics in the Middle East. Some Americans urge action against Assad because our enemies will not respect (or fear) us if we do nothing. People who say this believe that the cycle of vengeance can be ended by one more violent action, ours. They are obviously wrong. Our enemies take actions against us every day. Far from being deterred by our posturing, they are emboldened by it. Our acts of war convince people that we are a violent, lawless nation. The people of the world are more—not less—likely to oppose us because of violent actions we have taken and those we may make in the future.

Obama finds himself president of the strongest military power in the world. He also has a strong empathy for the people suffering in Syria. He believes he is the only one in the world who can aid the Syrians. We should applaud his motives, but not his intentions.

Obama can take many actions to further world peace without dropping bombs on anyone.

The United States should rejoin the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The US helped to set up these courts to handle international cases, but in recent years the US has become more isolated in the world, refusing to participate in world justice organizations because rulings have gone against us or our allies. When Assad finishes his reign of terror in Syria, the ICC will try him for crimes against humanity. Most likely he will be found guilty and punished for his crimes. That trial and punishment will be an example to other rulers that their crimes will not go unnoticed by the rest of the world.

The United States should call on all nations to stop providing aid and weapons to the Assad regime or to the opposition forces. The US should use its other great power, its wealth, to enforce this boycott. The US should call for all nations and corporations to divest themselves of economic instruments that support corporations engaged in warfare around the world.

Weapons do not magically come into existence. Corporations produce them and profit from their sales. The US should call on all corporations to stop providing such weapons to countries that abuse them. Corporations that fail to cooperate should be taxed to ensure that they do not profit from exporting misery.

Just as the US should convert to a green economy, it should also convert to a peace economy. In a peace economy, every economic decision that promotes peace is rewarded. Every economic action that promotes war is punished, not by bombs, but by economic disincentives.

The so-called war on terror has proven that the vast strength of our military is useless against a tiny, ragged band of committed soldiers. Our only safety comes from convincing people that they have nothing to gain from violence and everything to lose.

Genocide in Syria: The world must put an end to it

The Syrian civil war is a particularly horrendous one. It is comparable to the Rwandan civil war of 1990-1994 in which over 500,000 people were killed by the government and another two million forced to flee the country. Both wars were started by rogue governments who used propaganda to incite violence against minority populations. There have been over 100,000 deaths in the Syrian civil war, and perhaps a million refugees, who have fled to Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan.

The war in Rwanda was called a genocide. The war in Syria is now approaching the same level of violence. The UN failed to stop the former. Right now, the UN is standing by and watching the slaughter of Syrians by the thousands.

The civil war is between the Government of Syria and its opposition, which calls itself the Free Syrian Army. The primary supporters of Assad are the Allawites, a Shi'ite sect that comprises only 10 percent of the population. Assad receives weapons and money from Russia and Iran, whose rulers are also Shi'a, and military assistance from Hezbollah. Hezbollah, founded by Iran, are a state within a state in Lebanon, with perhaps 200,000 supporters and a battle-hardened militia.

The Free Syrian Army and its allies forces are primarily Sunni. They receive weapons primarily from Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

Syrian Government forces, supporters of Bashar Al-Assad, have used all the weapons of a modern military state in their campaign to remain in power. The US has condemned them for their use of chemical weapons, including the nerve-gas rison, but most of the deaths have been caused by conventional means, especially artillery shells and cluster bombs. Government forces are targeting civilians in hope of convincing them to stop sheltering the rebels.

The grotesque spectacle of a government killing its own people to stay in power has aroused the anger of much of the world. Russia and Iran are unmoved, however. The United Nations is powerless to provide military aid because Russia holds a permanent seat on the Security Council. At news that Assad may have used sarin gas against his people, Vladimir Putin said it didn't make any sense that Assad should use sarin against the rebels in a war that he was winning. Therefore, Putin theorized, the attacks, though real, were actually provocations intended to draw other nations into the war on the side of the rebels.

Putin's logic is faulty. Chemical weapons will not help Assad win the war, but that is not Assad's problem. He must win the peace. Since Assad's power base is the Allawite minority, just 10 percent of Syria's population, he needs to find some way to exercise authority over the Syrians after the war is over. Assad has chosen terror, as his father and Saddam Hussein did before him. Saddam used chemical weapons successfully to win his war with Iran and terrorize his own countrymen.

President Obama announced that the use of chemical weapons is a red line that Assad must not be allowed to cross with impunity. The US president says that chemical weapons pose a threat to the entire world, and that other countries will use them unless the US takes military action to “punish” Assad. Obama cannot seriously believe that the US can make a surgical strike and withdraw from the engagement. His military commanders must have told him that would be impossible. Assad has been telling his countrymen that Obama delayed his plans because he feared the reprisals that Assad would make.

Obama asked friday, "What's the purpose of the international system that we've built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world's people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?" In this sentence, as in others, Obama has spoken not just for himself and the American people, but for peace-loving people everywhere.

Obama never actually intended to do anything without Congressional approval. Right on cue, over 100 house members signed a letter to the president stating that engaging the military without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers delineated in the Constitution. Twenty-one Democrats joined Republicans in signing the letter. But Obama knew that House Republicans would oppose any action he might take. Many of them were waiting to see what would happen before making any statement. By delaying any action, Obama forces his political opponents to take a position on the record. He also emphasizes the fact that they are all on vacation and unwilling to return, while he is on the job in Washington.

Obama has given the English parliament what it asked for when it defeated Prime Minister Cameron's motion to support a strike against Syria. The English opposition insisted that Cameron should wait for the UN inspectors to file their report on the evidence of chemical weapons. Now they have their wish.

Finally, Obama has put pressure on the United Nations. It is the UN that proposed and ratified the international system that is supposed to safeguard human rights. But the UN system for enforcing its treaties depends on unanimous consent and is therefore seldom invoked. Outside observers have declared that the US cannot interfere in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. The UN has declared that chemical weapons must not be used in warfare. Now would be a good time for the UN to prove that it, not the US, enforces international law. Genocide, not just chemical weapons use, is a crime against humanity.