Syria: The Milgram Experiment

I could go on and on with examples of limbic, reactive, defiant or protective behaviour that goes contrary to the facts.  I don't need to, though, because you see them in the headlines every day.

Case in point?  Syria.

Mostly, however, those who are unmoved by the victims in the Aug. 21 attack - those who are indifferent about our collective obligation to punish the use of chemical weapons - have simply said one thing, over and over: Prove it happened.  "I doubt/deny it happened."

Forget Marxism - Randian objectivism is the major political philosophy at play today.  Couched in "heroic" terminology, the essence of Rand's philosophy is this - self-interest is the only noble pursuit and a fancy justification for "my mind is already made up, don't confuse me with the facts."  She misuses the term axiom (a premise so true that it is universally accepted without controversy) in a way that the laissez-faire crowd has latched on to with pride.

We're back to Syria.  Sitting in a coffee shop or 'round the kitchen table or boardroom table somewhere in North America, how do we really know what's happened in Syria?  It's in our best interest not to get involved in other people's business, even where innocents are being slaughtered - that's a bit too much like committing sociology.

Footage on TV could be faked - or, it could be misrepresented.  There's nothing axiomatic about what we're seeing, right?  I used a fancy word, so my position is validated!

Reports from Doctors Without Borders?  They're pointedly not assigning blame, so that doesn't help us any, does it?

Lots of people are saying Assad bombed his civilians with chemical weapons - Assad agrees chemical weapons were used, but says it was the other guys that did it.  How can we know for sure who's guilty on our side of the pond?

This is where the Milgram experiment comes in:

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process.  Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible wit fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority.

Or as Adalbert Lallier admitted: "I pretended not to have seen, I pretended not to have heard because I didn't want to be responsible."

Here's what'll happen if Obama caves in to "the Russian proposal."  Having already said he hasn't used chemical weapons, Assad's stockpile will be overlooked, moved, made inaccessible and therefore, the existence of them will prove unaxiomatic - you can't believe in what you can't see, right?

Meanwhile, word will spread that the rebels have chemical weapons that they received from Saudi Arabia or whatever.  That's how self-interested players in power operate, after all - present rumour as fact and make your opponents work to prove it's false.  With the Syrian and Russian governments, probably with some nods from China, point to this as evidence that they've been right all along, Western citizens looking for excuses not to get involved will defer to the "authorities" and dismiss the faceless, unelected rebels as deceitful.  The burden of proof, after all, always lies with the weak.

Believing what they want to believe - that there's no reason for them to take any responsibility - more and more Western citizens will demand their governments stay out of the fray.  For his part, though, Assad will have two tools at hand; one, a discredited opposition that he can continue to call out as liars, regardless of the facts and two, ammunition that he needs to escalate his attacks - after all, you have to fight fire with fire, right?

It's a story we've seen before, that we continue to see played out across the world and in our very own backyard.  North Korea?  Not our problem.  Falun Gong?  They're a bit airy-fairy, so you can't take their arguments seriously.  Ethnic violence and systematic abuses faced by Roma-Sinti?  Honestly, can you trust a Gypsy?  Abused and missing First Nations' women?  Drunks, drug-addicts and if anything is being done to them, it's by their own kind, so not our problem.  

If any of this was of real concern, why, the authorities would be doing something about it.

Wake up, people - we are the authorities of our own actions and, in a democratic system, our governments'.  It's not "do unto others as your governments dictate" - it's "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you." 

What Rand described as consciousness - being aware of something - is really just awareness.  True consciousness is the realization you can do something about it.

There's only one way to get ahead of these avoidable tragedies that we all wear by our inaction as much as our action; that's to own up to our responsibility to society, both here and abroad.  

Syria is as good a place to start as any.

UPDATE: I've been asked about what I would like to see us do, so in broad brushstrokes, here you go.

We (the West or just Canada if no one else is ready to pony up) should get in on the ground in the hot zones.  The goal wouldn't be to threaten one side or the other, but to put ourselves in the line of fire - with the risks and responsibilities that entails.  If we place our troops around the civilians with a mandate to protect themselves and those behind them, it forces aggressors to decide how committed they are to killing their own people.  If Assad kills Canadians/Western troops in the process, they are essentially declaring war on all of us.  Either way, he's forced to own the consequences of his actions.

Canadians can help out with mediation on the diplomatic side, but if aggressive defence is called for, we are skilled at that, too.  Is it interventionist?  Absolutely.  If we believe in protecting the innocent, intervention is called for.

Assad, Terrorism, Sarajevo

"You are going to pay the price if you are not wise dealing with terrorists," he said.

ter·ror·ist  

/ˈterərist

A person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.

ter·ror·ism  

/ˈterəˌrizəm/

The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

Assad is the definition of a terrorist; he's slaughtering his own people, the ones he is supposed to serve, to keep his government alive.  Terror, violence and an escalating use of chemical weapons are the tools of his trade.  In his threats to the US, you can read a veiled reference to nuclear attack.  

This guy is playing an all-in game; he's Syria's Kim Jong Il.  What is the scenario he's hoping to see?  The West continues to back down and eventually, he massacres every Syrian that stands against him?  His then builds his throne out of the bones of his broken country?

There is no way the Syrian conflict does anything but escalate until the Assad regime is gone; it's either an internal fight that splashes blood on the hands of every nation - including ours - that stands on the sidelines while innocents fall, or it expands into a bigger conflict, with Damascus becoming the 21st Century equivalent of Sarajevo.  

Unless somewhere, someone starts to put the lives of innocent Syrians before their own political interests.  History provides a pretty good example of how likely that scenario is.

Save us all from arrogant men, and all the causes they're for...

Two Simple Questions for Team Assad

“The Syrian government will not change position even if there is World War III. No Syrian can sacrifice the independence of his country,” he reportedly told AFP.

Is that what this is all about?  Independence?  I think not.  The majority of the rebels are Syrians - they're being stomped on with toxic prejudice because, ostensibly, they are a threat to Syria.  Assad's regime is willing to kill women and children to protect his Syria from them.

Now, we're hearing that his government is willing to watch the world burn, turning Syria into this century's Sarajevo - all in the name of protecting Syria's independence. 

Here's a news flash, Team Assad - when you can only maintain control through the murder of your own populace and by threatening external forces, you ain't leader any more.  You're a dictator.

Assad's life is increasingly in danger, his country is in ruins and a whole new generation of Syrians will be scarred for life by the trauma of war.  The Syria Assad claims he wants to protect is gone.  Everything you say you stand for is fiction you're selling yourself as much as everyone else.

Put your critical thinking caps on, Team Assad, let's do an objective assessment.

What does victory look like to you?  A nation that loves you, the respect of your international peers for being a tough leader, a velvet-draped palace to hold court in?

Is that victory in any way achievable?  It isn't.  The most you can hope for is Scenario A - you hunker down behind your firewalls as your countrymen burn around you; eventually, someone's gonna break that wall down.  You know what happens next. Scenario B - Assad gets out with the hope for asylum somewhere.  He holes up in relative luxury and publishes his memoirs.  Someone needs to wear the war, though, and if it ain't the boss...

But there's no point in talking to Assad; he's got the dictator complex, like Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi before him.  How'd that work out for them?

There's no hope for Assad - one way or another, this will end badly for him.  It doesn't have to for his lieutenants.  History will never remember you if you continue to back your leader; he'll be vilified, you'll be forgotten.  Looking down the road you have death, humiliation and loss awaiting you, with nothing to show for it in the long run.  Is that what you want?

Think about it, fellas - do you want to go down with the ship, or are you still hopeful you can gain something out of this; money, power, the love of the people, the respect of peers?  It's only impossible for as long as you continue to back Assad. 

Something to think about.