Assad

by

The Conspiracy of the Lie

When the Soviet Union was implicated in an Olympic doping scandal this spring, it brought up my pent- up indignation from the Cold War.  During the regime of Nikita Krushchev Russians would deny any charge, from silencing dissent to aerial spying to expanding nuclear arsenals to manipulating East European governments to aiding guerilla forces in Vietnam, Cuba, the Congo, Angola and most corners of the earth. And like all good liars they accused the United States of conducting a propaganda campaign against them. At the time I never considered that my country would lie, so Krushchev’s blatant lies sounded all the more offensive. I knew that Russians were lying when their mouths were moving.

The recent Soviet admission that the doping charges in May were true has added fuel to my fire:

Russian sports officials had vehemently denied the doping operation’s existence despite a detailed confession by the nation’s former antidoping lab chief, Dr. Grigory Rodchenkov, in a New York Times article last May that was subsequently confirmed by global antidoping regulators.

An investigator appointed by the World Anti-Doping Agency, Richard McLaren, published more extensive evidence this month that prompted the International Olympic Committee to open disciplinary proceedings against dozens of additional Russian athletes.

Russia’s drastic shift in tone may be motivated by a desire to reconcile with the regulators, who have stipulated that the nation accept the findings of the recent investigation before the country is recertified to conduct drug testing and be a host again of Olympic competitions. (NY Times, December 27)

It feels wrong to assume that Russian officials are chronic liars, but there is not much evidence to the contrary. That they have confessed to systematic doping to give their athletes an advantage in the 2014 Olympics in Sochi suggests that they have cheated their way through many other Olympics, who knows how many? That they initially denied the charges outright and only confirmed them when they had something to gain suggests that their steadfast denials of most charges are suspect. That they lie whenever it gives them advantage. For example, when they were accused of sending in troops to take Crimea and managed to deny it for months.

That we have always contended they were liars seems to support our credibility and the Soviets lack thereof. So whenever they deny charges of aggression or spying they are probably lying. They are so contemptuous of the truth, they are barely able to recognize it, when they stumble across it. In short, they are pathological liars.

Here is where I should point out that the United States lies as well. However, the U.S. also confesses when necessary and has a free press that often makes it necessary.  Probably the worst offenses come in time of war, as a U.S. statesman pointed out in World War I: “The first casualty when war comes is truth” (Hiram W Johnson, staunchly isolationist senator for California, to the US Senate in 1917).  But even here we can hear exposure and transparency.  There is an implicit standard of truth that mocks us if we lie and do not confess.

We would not expect these admissions from Soviet statesmen. Maybe from powerful dissenters who are not silenced by the state, but not from those who represent the state or its organs of power. Lying is an accepted norm, a necessary mode of defense. Lying is a reflex that allows the nation to maintain its illusions of world leadership and power.

The Conspiracy of the Lie may be actually what draws President Vladmir Putin to other liars, such as Hafiz Assad and Donald Trump. All three men will make counter-factual statements with fiery resolve. If their lies are ultimately proven false, they quietly withhold their assertions and ultimately act as if they had never made them.  They may indignantly deny having made them.  There are no retractions, confessions or setting the record straight. The lies drift off into the ether. They perpetuate the myth that the liars are never wrong.

It still raises my hackles, whether it be strategy, pathology or personality. It seems so abusive of the listener, so arrogant, so contemptuous that the only appropriate response would be a slap in the face. Because accusing a liar is what the liar expects. The liar thrives on accusations; it deepens his resolve; it fortifies him.  Maybe if we beat him senseless, he would blink or make a small concession. Maybe if we water-boarded him.

Yes, it’s till there. That Cold War indignation.  The kid’s heightened sense of justice. It burns deep and sears the trust I should have of Russian adults. But I won’t trust them. I only hear the rage of betrayal, when voices of Soviet power speak.  But only when their lips are moving.

 

by

What’s Ethics Got to Do With It?

When we hear objections about the proposed punishment of Syria by targeted and limited bombing, we hear the litany of isolationism and the dangers of involvement in the Middle East. No one addresses the issue of whether the use of chemical weapons should be punished  or that unprecedented brutality should be opposed.  And we hear recriminations about the war in Iraq and how that has to be avoided at all costs.

You have to be pragmatic about war, and consequences matter, but is it possible that a circumscribed air attack on military targets is the ethical response to the brutal actions of the Assad regime in Syria? No one wants to address this, as if it were the last consideration of going to war. Or some want to make this proposed air strike equivalent to putting boots on the ground in Iraq.

Yes, consequences matter, but an ethical choice usually comes with risk, and the risks of action should be weighed against the risks of inaction. Risk by itself is not an argument sufficient to negate an ethical choice.

We wanted to be left alone prior to 9/11/2001, but then we found out there were  those who would not leave us alone.  We found out isolationism was a myth. So began the war on terrorism, which continues today. In Afghanistan we have tried to respond ethically by the counter-insurgency. We have tried to rehabilitate the political, educational and military institutions of Afghanistan, because we realized it was a breeding ground for our enemies.  History will judge how successful we have been.

But the lesson of this century has been that we are not safe as an isolated country, and we can not rehabilitate societies by our isolated effort.  We are both responsible and not responsible for the abuses beyond our borders, and we have to act and hold back from action with equal discretion.

The proposed attack on military targets in Syria is one such choice, and President Obama has proposed a plan that honors both intervention and restraint.  It is an ethical plan, not a politically expeditious plan, and that is what the opponents don’t seem to get.  They want reduce it to an “Obama-Plan” or “What’s-in-it-for-us?”  Plan. Even the Arab states are holding back, when they should be leading the charge against Assad. There’s not enough in it for them.

We are at a point in history  when nothing gets judged by its potential for good or evil.  We are all about consequences, even consequences we can’t foresee.  It is fine to see this proposed action as unethical, because of its potential for human carnage, but very few in opposition have taken that position.  They are all about preserving our own society and avoiding entanglements. I wish they had felt that way in 2001.

The ethics of opposing an absolute evil are at stake in Syria, and I wish the discussion would focus on that and not the p0litical agendas of opposing President Obama or the illusion of isolationism.  Refusing to get the point of the argument is to dodge the responsibility to act ethically.