Whatever Happened to “American Credibility”?

The dog that didn't bark; the GOP.

Usually when American “credibility” is “tested,” there is intense political pressure on U.S. presidents to react forcefully (often violently); pressure from the national political establishment and the commanding heights of the elite media.

Today we have a situation that would ordinarily fit this bill. Yet there haven't been howls that Obama is creating a “disaster” for U.S. credibility, that his “weakness” is sapping American power. (Credibility meaning the weight that U.S. demands and threats carry, based on the expectation that the U.S. will enforce its will, with military assault if necessary. Having one's bluff called is highly destructive to credibility. And as a large part of what power is and what creates power is the perception that an entity or person is powerful. Thus loss of credibility results in actual loss of power, in that others are less afraid to resist demands and threats. Power is the ability to impose one's will, to make others obey, and to control events.)

Some time back, Barack Obama declared a “red line” that Syria's Assad better not cross- namely using chemical weapons on the people under his misrule.

Assad crossed that line some months ago, gingerly, testing, probing Obama's “resolve,” as seriousness of commitment is called in the vernacular of “international relations.” And he did it somewhat cunningly. He lied about doing it, while also floating the idea that the rebels might have chemical weapons. He must have been thrilled when some in the U.S. and European political and media elites decided to give some credence to these insulting lies, saying it was “unclear” what happened, and if something happened, who did it. (The general sleaziness of some of the rebels didn't help any, as it raised doubts about their claims and evidence. In their defense, it is understandable that desperate people would say and do almost anything to get help.)

Now it appears that Assad has escalated the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian population. Videos apparently show the results of a large attack that has killed up to 1200 or so Syrians, including children. One doctor trying to treat the victims with inadequate resources was interviewed by the BBC.

Once again, some in the West are grasping at reasons not to believe it. Their line is Why would Assad do this just when a UN chemical inspection team is in the country?

Because he's brazen, a shameless liar, and doesn't care what you think anyway. He knows you aren't going to stop him from killing. (Doing so would involve a war, and Iran and Russia are backing Assad, and Hezbollah in Lebanon is fighting by his forces' side in Syria. There would be no quick victory without a ground invasion, and the Iraq experience is a good sample of what would ensue, only worse, as Saddam Hussein had no one to stand by his side, unlike Assad. Plus, in what friendly neighboring country would the U.S. mass its invasion force? Turkey? Turkey nixed the use of its territory to invade Iraq, although this situation is different, as Turkey is burdened with fleeing Syrian refugees and Assad has shelled Turkey, killing Turkish citizens, and shot down a couple of Turkish jet fighters. How about Israel? Imagine that! Israel would be crazy to allow it. That's the one thing that could unite Arabs, Sunnis and Shiites. Well, the U.S. could always invade Lebanon, I guess. It's done that a couple of times, under Eisenhower and Reagan.)

The Syrian regime has responded to the latest denunciations and “expressions of concern” with the usual brazen denials and blame-shifting. (There were no chemical weapons! And the terrorists did it!) And for good measure the regime denounced the likes of Sky TV and Aljazeera for “having the blood of Syrians” on their hands. (How's that one for infuriating gall?) Russia has weighed in with skeptical comments about the reality of the atrocity. (Yet they're stymieing an investigation by a UN team already in Syria to look into chemical weapons attacks. Gee, that's odd. If they think Assad is getting a bum rap, how come they don't want a UN investigation which would clear Assad? I just can't figure that out, can you?)

At the moment Germany is the most out-front in demanding a proper UN investigation. (Is the U.S.”leading from the rear,” as during the aerial support for the Libyan people when they rose up against the psychopathic tyrant Qaddafi? It doesn't appear that way. By the way, the Western intervention in Libya was totally justified, and just, and a rare and welcome use of Western and U.S. military power to do some good in the world, even if the motives weren't pure. Doing the right thing even for the wrong reasons is better than doing wrong things for bad reasons. Yes, the aftermath is an unfortunate mess. Qaddafi hollowed out civil society and governmental institutions during his long misrule. And jihadists inevitably move in where there is weakness. Still, the Libyan people deserve a chance to build a better society than Qaddafi's nightmare which was imposed on them. Now if only the West would pay compensation for the few bad bombing strikes, they could hold their heads up with pride.)

Assad is giving Obama a fig leaf to save face by denying any chemical attacks, and/or attributing them to the rebels. (This attack was in a rebel-controlled area, so hard to see why they would gas their own territory. Maybe they're crazy!) So those so inclined can exaggerate causes for doubt. (Hey, maybe the whole attack is a hoax, using old videos. But it doesn't seem like it.)

Usually, when a much smaller foreign nation defies (or is perceived to defy) the U.S., force is swiftly exerted to make an example of the miscreant nation and thus reinforce U.S. power. (Notice that Cuba is still being squeezed in the coils of U.S. power, going on 54 years now, because it won't knuckle under.)

But “defying” the U.S. has become more noticeable of late. Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia have been “defying” it in the last few years under independent presidents. (Respectively, Chavez and his successor, Correa, and Morales.) This is reflective of changes in the world political situation, which has created subtle shifts in the balance of power, diffusing power among other countries.

Russia and China are backing Assad. Syria in effect is a pivot point where those rival powers to the U.S. see an opportunity to stymie the U.S. and weaken the U.S. by letting it damage its own credibility. With their backing, Syria is protected from diplomatic moves against the Syrian regime at the UN since China and Russia have veto power on the UN Security Council. (The only part of the UN with any actual power.) Syria is now a place where various tectonic plates are rubbing against each other: not just distant large powers but regional ones including Turkey and the Gulf oil sheikdoms, plus the religious factions within Islam.

So it is a truism that the situation is “complex.” And now that the U.S. missed a chance to make a difference by refusing for two years (especially early on when the rebels seemed to be on a roll) to provide weapons and ammo to the rebels, the only real option left that could make a difference would be U.S. bombing of regime targets. Given the support of Russia and Iran for Assad (not to mention Hezbollah in Lebanon, which has sent combatants to fight on Assad's side), such an escalation would have unpredictable consequences. Plus, after two years of dithering, U.S.-fretting over jihadists moving in has finally come to pass. Now there really aren't any good options.

Remember way back when, two years ago, when Obama and his then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly stated publicly that Assad had to go? We haven't heard that in awhile. Apparently that goal has been quietly abandoned. (Isn't that the definition of failure? Stating your aim and not achieving it?)

So much for “credibility.”

Yet the Republicans have been notably restrained in attacking Obama over this loss of “credibility.” Even those calling for military action, such as Senator John McCain, haven't attacked Obama or accused him of “weakness.” This would seem to point to a near consensus among the imperial elite in Washington that the U.S. had best not get too involved.

The costs of the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, costs that will stretch far into the future (wounded and mentally damaged veterans, interest on the debt incurred, for example) could be a factor in Washington's newfound gun-shyness. Especially since neither were rousing victories, but have left muddled and unstable situations in their wakes.

Of course, the flip side of caution is being drunk on power. That leads to messes like the Indochina war. That war, and the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan, provide valuable lessons to those in power about the limits of their power, of which they apparently require periodic reminders via disasters of their own making.

But they aren't the ones who pay, in blood or limbs. And only an infinitesimal part of the trillions in dollars squandered (that could instead have been used to make life much better for people) comes out of their own pockets.

Regarding the Syrian tragedy, at this point all the U.S. is concerned with is appearances. Surely the high apparatchiks who make policy realize there is no diplomatic solution to be had here. (That was obvious two years ago to me, given the nature of Assad and his regime. He wasn't going to be talked out of power! A person who commits the kind of extreme atrocities his regime has to hang on to power obviously will never give it up voluntarily.) So the game now is to issue denunciations, expressions of concern, wring ones hands, go through the motions at the UN of trying to get Russia and China to agree to some more toothless resolutions, and so on. Make it look like the U.S. cares about human beings. But the U.S. is just another powerful nation, that only cares about power. U.S. talk about “human rights” has always been only about public relations and political leverage over adversary and enemy regimes. It is part of propaganda.

After all, the U.S. is a nation that was founded on the twin pillars of genocide and slavery, (which it abolished well after most other nations did), and while it has evolved (fitfully) along with the rest of the world, its long history of domestic repression (which has been increasing greatly since the Al-Qaeda attack of 9/11/01, in part engineered by the FBI and CIA precisely to permit the current increase in police state power with its ever-more-omniscient surveillance and policing of dissent) is enough to convincingly refute the incessant propaganda about American “freedom.”