Reasonable Doubt

Many arguments have been advanced as to why the U.S. should not rush to bomb Syria.  One apparently compelling argument raises the issue of “reasonable doubt” as in the following article: Syria: why would Assad invite a Western intervention by using WMDs in a war he was winning? by historian Tim Stanley.

The general argument is that at this point it is not clear who actually used chemical weapons in Syria, or even whether this was a deliberate release or accidental spill, something that could very well happen in the chaos of a war zone.  We all remember how the Bush government once claimed that it had slam sunk evidence that Saddam had a stockpile of chemical weapons, a claim that turned out to be false, which should cause us to be wary of the claim that the current government has gathered incontrovertible evidence that Assad used chemical weapons.  Therefore, it is argued that it would be prudent not to rush into any irreversible military adventure. I think this warning is well intentioned but misguided.

Of course, it is doubtful whether we can have any hope that the Obama government would heed it.  After all, this is a government that has asserted its right to assassinate anyone, even American citizens, on the mere say-so of the President and has in fact carried out such assassinations.  A government that flaunts the due process of law is unlikely to be encumbered by reasonable doubt.  We’re already hearing about the Obama government’s determination to proceed with an attack on Syria unilaterally, without even taking the matter to the U.N., something the Bush administration eventually resolved to do agonizingly in Iraq after a lengthy and determined but unsuccessful diplomatic effort to get the U.N.’s stamp of approval.  The dismissing of the U.N. as hopelessly paralyzed (heard on NPR today from a government spokesperson) has been lifted right out of Bush’s playbook, but is coming even more swiftly and shrilly.  It does seem that the Obama administration has even less regards for international law than its predecessor.  After all, the U.S. government has a reputation for ruthlessness (forged over many successive administrations) to maintain.  Pundits are already lining up to intone: What would the world think if we go around drawing red lines in the sand and then fail to dish out a harsh punishment on anyone suspected of crossing it?  That we are weak?  That we lack determination?  That our threats are not to be taken seriously?  No high school bully could maintain his reputation if he failed to beat up a kid who forgot to bring in his daily tribute.  Mafia dons also know the importance of tolerating no missed payments without painful consequences.  That people would die in the bombings, perhaps as collateral damage, is a small price to pay to maintain this reputation for ruthlessness, and besides it is not even clear that they are completely human now that the mainstream media has so well demonized them.

But a more fundamental point not addressed in the article above is whether the U.S. government has any moral right to bomb Syria even if chemical weapons had been used deliberately.  In fact, by pleading reasonable doubt, Dr. Stanley seems to imply that if these doubts could be dissipated, then bombing Syria would be justified.  [I have never talked with Dr. Stanley, so I don't know whether he in fact thinks that.  I am only making a rhetorical argument about the logical consequences of pleading reasonable doubt in this context.]  But let’s put the shoe on the other foot for a moment:  If the U.S. government dropped a nuclear bomb on Iran, assuredly a most heinous war crime but an option it has steadfastly refused to “take off the table” of its arsenal of threats against that country, would China or Russia then have the right to bomb us to “punish” our government for this crime?  Threatening other countries with repercussions for perceived transgressions may seem reasonable to us when our own government has self-appointed itself as judge, jury and executioner and we can sit comfortably at home and watch it on TV, but would it still seem so if a foreign government threatened to do the same thing to us?  I think the answer is obvious unless we are blinded by American exceptionalism (an ideology that Obama has publicly endorsed, by the way).  For those who have not been paying attention, American exceptionalism is the idea that this country has been founded on such bedrock righteousness that it can do no wrong, so unlike other countries it can stockpile and use nuclear weapons for example, because it can be trusted to only use them for noble and righteous purposes whereas other countries cannot be trusted to be so judicious.  A very convenient ideology indeed for the foremost imperial power in the world.

My conclusion is that the reasonable doubt argument is irrelevant to the issue of whether the U.S. government has the right to bomb Syria.  It does not have that right, period, and we should say it loudly.  It would only matter whether it is Assad or his enemies who used chemical weapons deliberately or accidentally and whether this can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt if the matter was brought in front of the International Court of Justice.  It is not up to the U.S. government, who by the way has yet to recognize the jurisdiction of this court, to erect itself as judge and arbiter of all good and evil.