For several days I've wanted to post an opinion that goes against the tide and against the pope. I have heard for ten days or more President Obama call for a response, a military response, to the accusations that President Bashar al-Assad of Syria used chemical weapons on civilians in that country's ongoing civil war. THAT chemical weapons were used is not in doubt. WHO used them is perhaps in doubt (but not to President Obama). HOW MANY died is in doubt, but estimates range from 400 to 1,500. WHAT TO DO is the question.
Pope Francis, predictably yet fervently, came out against any additional aggression on the part of a third party (the U.S. and allies) as a response to the chemical weapons attack. Other clerics inside the Catholic Church also spoke against an attack.
John Allen of National Catholic Reporter had an excellent analysis comparing what diplomatic actions Pope Francis is using in this crisis in Syria with what Pope John Paul II and his staff did in 2003, in the American run-up to an invasion of Iraq. The two situations are mirrors of each other.
A complicating factor for Christians is that President Assad may be the lesser of two very bad evils. An opinion piece in Commonweal says Christians in Syria are more prepared to deal with the "devil they know," President Assad, even with his egregious human rights attacks, to the "devil they don't know," that is, jihadists who may challenge the right of Christians to pray and exist in Syria. There are no "good" choices in this civil war, but if the Christians have to choose, they land on survival within a dictatorship to expulsion or martyrdom within an extreme Muslim government.
President Obama could not have called for a military strike against Syria in response to the chem attacks because it was going to raise his popularity. Opinion poll after opinion poll have shown a general unwillingness on the part of most Americans to stomach another attack on another Middle East country. In the light of Iraq, usually hawkish Republicans on Capital Hill have had an amnesia attack, and criticized the president for his suggestion of so-called "surgical strikes." They've been joined by liberal Democrats, who want to remind us they said "we told you so" ten years ago, and want no more of war. The president did change his mind several days ago, and decided not to act unilaterally. He asked for consultations with Congressional leaders, and a resolution of support for his military response to chem attacks. For days the news has been that few senators or representatives have enthusiastically supported the president's plan. Whether a congressional resolution of support for the President would pass both houses is in doubt.
Pope Francis, following that 2003 script, at his audience on Sunday, September 1, called for a "day of prayer and fasting" by Catholics, and all persons of faith, for Saturday, September 7. He asked that all pray for an end to the civil war in Syria, no further escalation of violence [that is, that the U.S. not drop bombs on Syria], and a beginning of diplomatic talks leading to peace. Who among us couldn't support prayer? I added my rosary and my Masses that day for the pope's intentions.
Yet...I have to say that in my mind and heart, I've supported President Obama in his call for a military response to the use of chemical weapons (probably) by the Assad government. I feel that the use of these weapons cannot go without response, and that the only response Assad and his supporters will understand is more bombs.
So to my shock when I awoke this morning, I heard (1) Secretary of State Kerry yesterday seemed to sarcastically suggest at a press conference that the only response to a military strike would be Syria submitting its chemical weapons to international control. Then he added (my words, not his), fat chance. (2) The Russian and Syrian foreign ministers picked up on this seeming throw-away line, and jumped on it as a possibility. (3) The French government, about the only other country to support President Obama's call for military response (after Great Britain's Parliament handcuffed the prime minister), set three conditions, which seem to be acceptable to Assad and his Russian backers. (4) Obama was scheduled to do a full-court media blitz yesterday, with interviews on multiple networks. He changed his tune and said, a-ha, a diplomatic solution would be an even better response to the international crisis of prevention of chemical weapons being used in war, than any military response. Let's see what our diplomats can do.
I (and the world) don't know where this is going, as of today (Sept. 10 about noon E.D.T.). But it causes me to wonder....How could such a change come about, from weapons to diplomacy, if not through the power of prayer?
No comments:
Post a Comment