I Believe in the Easter Bunny, Too

I guess it's good news that we may not have to bomb Syria after all--although I must say, it's been a stressful few weeks, and a little vicarious wanton destruction would have done this weary soul some good.  Still, I find the whole proposed workaround a bit dubious.  If I'm understanding things properly, Russia has suggested--and Syria has at least not out-of-hand rejected--the idea that a military solution can be avoided as long as Syria promises to let international inspectors check out--and eventually remove or destroy--Syria's chemical weapons.  I mean, if the goal is to thwart Syria's ability to launch chemical weapons attacks on its own or other people, this sounds like an eminently reasonable solution.  As long as you trust Syrian authorities to be forthright with international inspectors about the condition and location of all its chemical weapons' facilities--you know, those facilities that up until about, oh, an hour and a half ago, Syria was claiming didn't exist.

Whatever.  The whole realm of international politics--and domestic politics, for that matter--depends for its continued functioning on a certain willing suspension of disbelief--a willingness to accept things at face value despite all evidence to the contrary (the US doesn't torture, the members of Congress are motivated solely by a desire to help the American people, everyone has an equal voice in society regardless of wealth--you get the idea).  If accepting this empty promise keeps America out of yet another war, I guess that's a price worth paying.

Punting

Overall, you've got to figure that President Obama made the right choice: deferring any military action against Syria unless and until he receives congressional approval.  Of course, people will howl that he has damaged America's credibility by refusing to order the immediate cratering of Bashar al-Assad's presidential palace or something equally punitive in retaliation for the Syrian military's apparent gas attack on helpless civilians.  Then again, these would probably be many of the same people who would have howled that Emperor Obama was disdaining the Constitution had he gone ahead with a military strike without seeking Congress' blessing.  So we all might be wise to ignore most of the howling.

Personally, I'm torn about the whole situation.  If Assad actually ordered a poison-gas attack that killed scores of civilians, including numerous children, then he certainly deserves a special place in Hell.  I can't help but wonder, though, why it always seems to fall to the United States to administer such punishments.  True, the US possesses the world's strongest military, and this country has, at least in its rhetoric, always expressed a commitment to universal rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  But there are other countries with powerful militaries (at any rate, militaries that are more than capable of dealing damage to a regime like Syria's), and plenty of other nations that have expressed equal or greater outrage at the sight of dead Syrian children.  Why is everyone sitting around waiting for America to act?

This sort of situation, of course, is exactly what the United Nations was created for.  That organization, though, is hamstrung by the fact that Russia continues to support the Syrian government and also holds veto power over any proposed interventions.  So if Assad is to be punished, it will have to fall to other countries.

At any rate, Obama made the right move.  If Congress authorizes force, the President can order military strikes without, at least, worrying about domestic charges of unconstitutional overreach.  If Congress denies him such authorization, then the United States can at least for the moment avoid yet another military entanglement in the Middle East.

And maybe in the long run a slight loss of American credibility might not be such a bad thing: If the rest of the world--especially other liberal democracies with a strong commitment to human rights--realizes that America won't always take matters into its own hands, then maybe there can be a greater sharing of humanity's burdens.

Not in the Darkest Imaginings of Graham Greene. . . .

Of course, no one ever said that the life of an international diplomat was all brandy and sex tourism, but the news from today's Times is still harrowing nonetheless.  If you prefer not to be harrowed, may I suggest you check out "Sleep Talkin' Man," this week featuring delightful pictures of sloths.  Otherwise, read on at your own risk.

"After the American troops departed in December, life became more difficult for the thousands of diplomats and contractors left behind. . . . Within days, the salad bar at the embassy dining hall ran low. Sometimes there was no sugar or Splenda for coffee. On chicken-wing night, wings were rationed at six per person." ("U.S. Planning to Slash Iraq Embassy Staff by Half")

Dear. God.

Diminished salad bars?  No sugar?  OR Splenda?  ONLY SIX CHICKEN WINGS ON CHICKEN-WING NIGHT?!?!  To what kind of barbarity are we reducing our noble diplomats?  Even Somalian refugees can expect at least eight wings each on chicken-wing night!  I'm fairly certain that such deprivation runs afoul of several clauses of the Geneva Convention.  A whole sub-section--right after the bits about waterboarding--protects the rights of those held as prisoners of war or serving in diplomatic capacities to have access to a "break room" with adequate coffee supplies; no less a figure than Henry Kissinger faces indictment before the International War Crimes Tribunal for advocating policies during the 1970s denying Half-and-Half to Vietnamese POWs.

Alert Amnesty International!  Alert the Red Cross!  Alert Wing Stop!